MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
HUH? Would that be Vietnam? War on Poverty? Other than a few leftwing and right wing nutters Obama isn't catching any flack for Iraq or Afghanistan. Indeed, he is trying to claim credit for the Iraq success. It appears the surge in Afghanistan may well be successful, if it is not he'll get credit for trying.
Now if it's reckless spending that is similar, you've got a point. Was that your point?
I don't consider trying to spend money on domestic priorities that had been dropped into a shithole for a decade as "reckless" for one thing. It's what he campaigned on and why he was elected. Unfortunately, by the end of his campaign, the entire economy came crashing down, so he had to try to balance it all out. As for the two wars, I can almost guarantee that if we aren't out of there by 2011, that problem will just add to his woes.
What balance? He tried to ram it through without any bi-partisanship, forcing the Blue Dogs to go along with an agenda that was political suicide. After Scott win, he tried to appear to hit 'balance' with Congress and opposition party, the public didn't buy it, neither did those right of Obama in his own party. Now he's going for executive fiat, we'll see how the funding on that works out.
Ah but he didn't "force" the Blue Dogs to do his bidding now, did he? They voted the way they wanted to, just as they always do. And by "balancing," I mean he couldn't just jump right into the economic mess and say to all those people who had voted for him, "Sorry, but everything you wanted to get done won't happen."
I know you read your versions of everything, but I also read BOTH. Try it some time. You'll have a much better grasp of the severity and complexity of the whole situation.