Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Give me a break. Ignoring the fact that Obama had to vote for the bailout bill as well.....the President=elect is directly involved with the serving President, and throughout history, the POTUS has always gone out of their way to accommodate the policies and agenda of the President-elect.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_News"]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...f_Barack_Obama
Like I said.....very much involved.
And the fact that states and local governments have the ability to give money to ACORN is because of the bailout passed by the Federal Government. Either way, doesn't matter. I don't care about ACORN....they're just one company, or one part of the bailout process that was handled incorrectly.
Because the direction of their Presidency is completely opposite. At least for now. When it came to a bailout....Bush largely agreed with Obama on everything while he was still in office. Not very much to compare them with.
Not even going to bother responding. For someone who rails against arguments that 'Rush' uses....you're doing quite well yourself. |
Well--if you don't care about ACORN, why bring them up?
As for the President historically helping the President-elect, you and I both know that Politics is a rough game. No-one helps anybody else unless they have something to gain--and they certainly don't help out their ideological opponents. You might read up on the Hoover-Roosevelt transition for a better comparable example here--neither man wanted to be President for a second longer than they had to be.
These guys talk a good "transition"--because that's what people want after an election--civility. And if you seem to be uncooperative, or stonewalling, you can be punished for it in the polls. But trust me: it's an act. Bush had no interest in the success of the Obama administration, and Obama's only interest in the Bush administration was reducing the size of the **** sandwich he had to eat in the beginning of February. There are no altruistic actors here.
And you don't need to be grumpy with me: I was merely pointing out the absurdity of laying blame at Obama's feet for things that he could not possibly have been responsible for. My guess is that you didn't know that the ACORN thing happened before the election--and that's fair. I didn't know about it at all until I looked it up. But I think we can agree to take it off the table, can't we?
In the end, I'm not sure we disagree about Obama that much. I think he's too cautious, and I think the stimulus wound up being unweildy and a bit incoherent. I hope it works, but I'm worried that Paul Krugman is right that it's too small and not sufficiently directed. The problem is that it has the fingerprints of Congress all over it, and Obama's failure if we want to find one in this mess was in not controlling the language of the stimulus bill. Democrats aren't his allies here--they're politicians like anybody else, and I think he may have underestimated the extent to which Democratic lawmakers would fail to fall in lockstep with his agenda.