Obama says LOL to healthcare reform

[MrFun]

So he should have sacrificed long-time experience for green people in order to avoid choosing insiders?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Iraq. Not the entire ME. My point was, he's going to find that impossible.

The Bush administration has already started the steps towards drawing down the troop levels. Iraq has said in no uncertain terms they want us out, and fairly soon. I don't see why it's going to be "impossible."

Yeah, it's much more of a realization that raising taxes on the rich isn't actually a cure-all solution. If it was, he'd be pushing for immediate roll backs.

Restoring previous tax levels on the wealthiest Americans was never a "cure-all" solution for Obama, his economic plan was much broader than that.

No, but in order to live up to his promise of change, he'd have to pick people who were not actually Washington insiders. Admittedly, Richardson and Gates aren't, but the other three I mentioned certainly are, and also happen to be far-leftists.

Nonsense. "Change" doesn't mean just swapping out people for a bunch of inexperienced outsiders. Changing policies and direction requires a president with the will to do so, and it's expected that his advisors will work to enact his will. I think relying on people with a good deal of Washington experience is a pretty smart idea for trying to pass legislation that may be controversial (I believe Donna Shalala was already mentioned as a classic example of a n00b ****ing things up).

As for the "other three" being far-leftists:

Only to a wingnut they are.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun
So he should have sacrificed long-time experience for green people in order to avoid choosing insiders?

Maybe he should have thought of that before he made the promise?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Maybe he should have thought of that before he made the promise?

He never promised to stack his cabinet with inexperienced outsiders.

[MrFun]

Boris beat me with his reply, Kuci.

[David Floyd]

No, Obama promised "change". Bringing in Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton isn't changing anything, nor is bringing in one of the most partisan politicians on the Hill to be his Chief of Staff.

His economic plan may have been broader than immediately rolling back tax cuts, but he did campaign on the side of immediately rolling them back, and he's already gone back on that, because of the economy. That tells us something - for one thing, having rich people pay more taxes isn't going to help anything. Which is what I've been saying all along - I'm glad Obama agrees with me.

As to Iraq, if and when the US completely withdraws, the Iraqi government is going to find itself completely unable to fight terrorists like Muqtada al Sadr and fundamentalist regimes like Iran. US withdrawal is going to lead to a worse regime in Iraq than Saddam's, and I think Obama will realize that.

[Ramo]

No, Obama promised "change". Bringing in Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton isn't changing anything, nor is bringing in one of the most partisan politicians on the Hill to be his Chief of Staff.

You just claimed that they're from the "far left." They can't both be left wing radicals and supporters of the status quo.

but he did campaign on the side of immediately rolling them back

No. He didn't.

the Iraqi government is going to find itself completely unable to fight terrorists like Muqtada al Sadr and fundamentalist regimes like Iran.

The Iraqi government is allied to Iran. And Sadr looks relatively marginalized at this point, in no small part due to Maliki's pursuit of an American withdrawal.

If you want a reason to worry about Iraq, it's Kirkuk.

US withdrawal is going to lead to a worse regime in Iraq than Saddam's, and I think Obama will realize that.

Are you saying that we should stay in Iraq against the wishes of its elected government and the terms of the SOFA we just agreed to?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ramo
Are you saying that we should stay in Iraq against the wishes of its elected government and the terms of the SOFA we just agreed to?

When did DF switch from being a LOLertarian to being a NeoCon, anyway?

[MrFun]

He might have changed over just for the sake of the holiday season!

[Theben]

It's best just to ignore DF. I think he's making a bid for his own universe.

As for Obama, so far it's been all gravy as far as my expectations have gone. Dems in and Repubs out, check. Bush doctrine and associates universally derided, check. International goodwill restored, check. Return to governing by committee, check.

Now all I need is 3 liberal SCOTUS appointments and all my hopes for this administration will be fulfilled. Any reasonable policies that do any good along the way will be icing on the cake.

[David Floyd]

You just claimed that they're from the "far left." They can't both be left wing radicals and supporters of the status quo.

Very funny. Nicely argued, too. However, it misses the point. Obama's campaign was all about AVOIDING both the status quo and radicals on both sides. The Bush Administration was basically teetering between center-right and far right. Yes, Obama's appointees have been changes from that. No, Obama's appointees don't bring true change to Washington, except in the sense that every time a different party wins, the political seesaw swings from right to left to back again.

No. He didn't.

Umm, sorry, but he did. Obama campaigned extensively against the Bush tax cuts, and extensively for eliminating them quickly. At no point in his campaign did he say that his strategy was to let them "expire", so at best, Obama's campaign was evasive and disengenuous.

The Iraqi government is allied to Iran. And Sadr looks relatively marginalized at this point, in no small part due to Maliki's pursuit of an American withdrawal.

Yes, an Iraqi government allied to Iran is precisely the long-term problem to which I'm referring. As to al Sadr, we should have put about 3000 troops on the ground in his neighborhood and killed him and as many of his supporters as we could find. **** radical religious extremists. **** them in the ass until they die of anal bleeding. Funny, I would have thought you would share similar sentiments about religious extremists. Guess not, as long as they are fighting the Big Bad USA, right?

Are you saying that we should stay in Iraq against the wishes of its elected government and the terms of the SOFA we just agreed to?

If necessary for our national security, then yes. Who put that government in place? The US. Who trained its military/police forces, and continues to defend them because their military and police forces are too cowardly and/or incompetent to fight guerillas? The US.

Now all I need is 3 liberal SCOTUS appointments and all my hopes for this administration will be fulfilled. Any reasonable policies that do any good along the way will be icing on the cake.

Good luck with that. If you get 3 liberal SCOTUS appointees, they will only be to replace the liberals like Ginsberg who are getting a bit old.

And again, I thought Obama campaigned on a message of change, not on a message of "ride the liberal seesaw as far to the left as possible"?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you get 3 liberal SCOTUS appointees, they will only be to replace the liberals like Ginsberg who are getting a bit old.

Not necessarily. While 2 liberals would replace Stevens and Ginsburg, both Scalia and Kennedy are older (by 2 years) than the next oldest liberal, Breyer.

I think people forget that Scalia is 72.

And of course Scalia, at least, probably won't retire when a Dem is in office, but probability of people dying tends the rise the older they get.

[SlowwHand]

You're not getting any younger either, so there.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think people forget that Scalia is 72.

He must dye his hair. How vain.

[Ramo]

Obama's campaign was all about AVOIDING both the status quo and radicals on both sides.

Specifically. Which positions that Clinton, Daschle, and Emmanuel subscribe to qualify them as far left radicals? And by a "radical" position, I mean one that is very unpopular.

No, Obama's appointees don't bring true change to Washington, except in the sense that every time a different party wins, the political seesaw swings from right to left to back again.

Seems like a pretty large change to me.

Obama campaigned [...] extensively for eliminating them quickly

No. He didn't. If you can find a direct quote, I'd be glad to admit my mistake. But you're making that up. He had been deliberately vague since the time line was always dependent on political (a large enough Dem majority) and economic (healthy economic growth) concerns. Since we're in a recession, the partial repealing of the Bush tax cuts will probably be delayed.

Yes, an Iraqi government allied to Iran is precisely the long-term problem to which I'm referring.

We've been propping such a government up for the past 5+ years. The ruling parties, Da'wa and SIIC, are strongly tied to Iran. Da'wa was created explicitly as an Iranian client, and SIIC had its paramilitary, the Badr Corps, trained by the Revolutionary Guard How, exactly, are we addressing this problem?

As to al Sadr, we should have put about 3000 troops on the ground in his neighborhood and killed him and as many of his supporters as we could find.

Yes, we should've tried to massacre a third of Baghdad with 3000 troops. Brilliant idea, that.

**** radical religious extremists

What military actions do you propose against the government of Iraq?

Funny, I would have thought you would share similar sentiments about religious extremists. Guess not, as long as they are fighting the Big Bad USA, right?

Actually the Sadrists aren't fighting the Big Bad USA. In large part because we're getting the hell out.

I'm against retarded uses of military force as a general rule. Calling people "religious extremists" isn't sufficient justification for carte blanche military action.

If necessary for our national security, then yes.

How, exactly, is an indefinite occupation of country to prop up a government allied to Iran, with a population that emphatically doesn't want us there "necessary for our national security?"

Who put that government in place? The US.

Actually, they had a few elections. Our preferred clients lost.