Which Obama Promise Will Be Broken First?

[Vintij]

he did promise immediate withdrawal of troops when he went a begging at the alter of KOS. After he got their support and he won the primary he started moving center and changed it to "responsibly" The KOS hates that skank Pelosi cause she did the same damn thing. Wonder how Sheehan made out challenging Pelosi the bag hag?

No, Hillary promised to bring the troops home immediately. Obamas plan was for 16 month withdraw.

 

[del]

Would gays in the military be on your wish list rayboy?

"you don't have to be straight to be in the military, you just have to shoot straight."- barry goldwater

 

[del]

No, Hillary promised to bring the troops home immediately. Obamas plan was for 16 month withdraw.

yeah, it was, eventually...

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday U.S. combat forces should be out of Iraq by spring 2008 to end “a foreign policy disaster,” but he stopped short of endorsing a cutoff in funds.

The Illinois senator introduced a bill to force the redeployment under law, but that’s unlikely while Bush is president. Still, Obama said he’s taking Bush up on his challenge to critics to offer alternatives.

Obama wants troops home by spring '08 - Barack Obama News

 

[Jon]

The first promise he's going to break is he won't buy his poor daughters the puppy he promised them.

THINK OF THE PUPPIES!

 

[user_name_guest]

We should have a thread to all the things he promised and then bold them when he gets it done. Unbold them when they are not completed. Bold red if he does the opposite of what he says. Do this for every one who wins an election.

In a reply to your concerns, fuck you.

Let's see what he does accomplish first.

Now we could make a list of all the undelivered promises of the current incompetent in chief if there was room on these blogs.

This is the largest percent of the popular vote since Eisenhower was elected. Get over it. Most Americans want change.

If the die hard right don't intentionally fight just to sabotage him, we may get some actual real change for the better.

 

[The Paperboy]

To play Palin one on one.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Oh sorry yeah you wrote that right, I am still tired and not reading clearly from too late a night last night!

Understandable good sister and no problem.

 

[Caligirl]

The first promise he's going to break is he won't buy his poor daughters the puppy he promised them.

THINK OF THE PUPPIES!

 

[Vintij]

yeah, it was, eventually...

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday U.S. combat forces should be out of Iraq by spring 2008 to end “a foreign policy disaster,” but he stopped short of endorsing a cutoff in funds.

The Illinois senator introduced a bill to force the redeployment under law, but that’s unlikely while Bush is president. Still, Obama said he’s taking Bush up on his challenge to critics to offer alternatives.

Obama wants troops home by spring '08 - Barack Obama News

This was before the surge which he later did recognize as a success. What else would you say when things were getting worse by the day in Iraq, I agreed with him at that point in time as well. Later though, after everyone realized how successfull the surge had been he changed his stance to phased withdraw over 16 month period. McCain likes to lie about how he still does not admit the surge worked when he clearly did, I heard him on national radio.

 

[frazzledgear]

Obama: Tax cuts? I said there would be tax cuts? What was I thinking? Sorry folks, we can't afford any tax cuts, especially if I'm going to spend all this money we don't have. As I said in my acceptance speech, there will need to be sacrifices, so I am asking that you all begin to sacrifice as I'm going to raise your taxes by about twenty percent.

No candidate yet has been able to fulfill all their campaign promises. Many are made to simply try and get elected and the candidate never had any intention of keeping them anyway. I can also list a few that came from McCain that there was no realistic way he could ever keep.

There are also a slew that Obama will not be able to fulfill either. We will not be getting a tax cut -because Obama never promised tax cuts anyway. He promised a tax CREDIT paid for by the top 5%. A tax credit is a one time event and will be given even to those who pay no federal income taxes at all in the form of a "free lunch" - while a tax cut is typically done for at least a number of years and reduces the taxes of taxpayers. Considering the fact that Democrats have stupidly insisted it is the Bush tax cuts that led to the problems in the financial institutions and banks -when in fact it is due to the lack of Congressional oversight who totally failed in their duty to properly regulate these financial institutions (and let's remember who controlled Congress then) -I fully expect this Congress to hike everyone's taxes and Obama to sign it into law. That bottom 40% who don't pay federal income taxes at all as a result of Bush's tax cuts -will be reduced to something much closer to 30%.

He never promised to allow offshore drilling -what he said was that he would CONSIDER it. He'll consider it for all of 15 seconds and reject it though. Any promises he made that only showed up during the last few weeks of the campaign won't even be considered and are off the table anyway. The notion that he will go through the budget line by line and eliminate waste and useless programs is hogwash. He doesn't have a line item veto and when given the chance to eliminate nearly 100 useless programs that the OMB determined had failed miserably in their missions -he, like all the other Democrats -voted to keep them, unable to part with their love affair with wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. He will be ineffective regarding easing on our dependence on foreign oil which will remain. Every President for the last 40 years has promised to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and when each was done, our dependency on it was only greater. Obama has already rejected the most effective means of doing so anyway -Democrats always do. 67% of Americans want offshore drilling -Democrats refuse every single time. Instead, Obama will focus only on alternative methods that can't possibly have any impact whatsoever any time in the foreseeable future and will do zero to reduce our oil dependency.

While Obama was not my choice for President, I NEVER put the best interests of a particular political party before the best interests of my country. I am first and foremost an American. I am fully aware of the historic nature of this election and the incredible milestone that has been achieved. Watching the reactions in that massive crowd in Chicago last night was really something -although I still wish McCain had won. But I also think it should be considered a moment of great pride as a nation. As Bush said, it is an accomplishment that can only result in a more perfect union. As an American, as I do for any incoming President regardless of their party affiliation -I want him to do very well. When our President does well, so does our nation. I believe that no one comes into the office hoping to do poorly and screw over the country -and that regardless of their party, wants to do well and go down in history as a wonderful President. Who would want the job hoping history judged him poorly? Once sworn in, he represents our NATION, not a particular party -something Democrats have a hard time grasping I think -or blatantly reject entirely - when it comes to a Republican President. And ONLY if he is a Republican President. Then Democrats swear the Republican came into office only in order to make friends rich, tear up the Constitution, to settle old scores, in the hopes of finding an excuse to start a war, to create a theocracy and on and on and on. All of which is bs.

(I think it is interesting that the NY Times waited until NOW to print the truth about the dilemma this President AND the next will face when it comes to Gitmo. They wouldn't do it when it was just this Republican President dealing with it because it was Bush and better fit their partisan agenda to keep that full information from the public. Anyone read that article? It names who is left at Gitmo, the terrorist activities and atrocities these men already committed and all of whom are still committed terrorists intent on killing Americans, describes why these men are still just as dangerous, the fact they can't just be sent back to their countries of origin because all would be put to death which would come back on this country since we knew that in advance, why they REALLY can't be allowed inside this country and given a criminal trial under our civilian system and why military tribunals really are the best and most viable option here! WHAT? After spending YEARS telling people how no one can possibly expect real justice in a military tribunal in this democracy and how AWFUL it is that Gitmo even exists? ROFL Personally, if the left wants Gitmo closed, I say send them back to their countries of origin regardless of the immediate death sentences they all face. But this all means that like Bush, don't expect Obama to promptly close Gitmo either. But watch how fast the griping about Gitmo disappears as an issue for Democrats suddenly. Democrats specialize in the double standard. At all times, they are unwilling to hold their own anywhere near the level they insist Republicans must be held to.)

Don't expect Obama to immediately withdraw US troops from Iraq either or before Iraq feels confident it can fully provide for its own security. Not going to happen and Obama already changed his original position from an immediate withdrawal to one done only in light of circumstances on the ground. Which only makes sense. No way this guy wants to injudiciously remove all troops only to see that country take a nosedive into mass violence at the hands of terrorists hoping mass murder will give them power -or have it become a terrorist safe haven with massive oil revenues at their disposal. Because that kind of disaster would become Obama's legacy -while Bush left him with conditions in Iraq with clear victory within grasp. That would be a victory he rejected at the cost of millions of lives, the failure his alone. He isn't going to do that.

Now that he has won, I have no intention of immediately looking for reasons to hyper-criticize Obama as Democrats routinely do with any Republican President. I don't engage in the stupid nitpicking and made-up bs we constantly saw Democrats do to Bush and his administration from day one. I want Obama to do well now and that takes precedence over my partisan political positions I may have and I will end up giving him the benefit of the doubt most times. And if its between my President and some thug dictator or some hostile or semi-hostile nation -I ALWAYS will. I hope he gets his feet under him quickly and it doesn't take the typical two years it does for a new President with no executive experience.

In fact, because Democrats have so often started off with their whiny hypercriticism of any new Republican President even before Inauguaration - I have wondered if Democrats really are capable of putting the best interests of the nation before those of their party. They are not always one and the same for EITHER party. When faced with the opportunity to prove they can, they invariably choose to put the best interests of their party before that of the nation and at the expense of the nation's best interests. I have a LONG list of examples just from what they did just during the first few weeks of the Bush administration that they never stopped. But is only slightly worse than what they did right off the bat with any Republican President during their initial months and then continued -and long before they even had their administration firmly in place. Democrats have shown that when it comes between a Republican President and even one of the worst dictators in the world or ANY other nation in the world -they would rather give the benefit of the doubt to that dictator and ANY other nation over their own President IF he's a Republican. (Which is consistent with their insistence that the "real" enemy of this country are always and ONLY fellow, non-Democrat Americans anyway.)

I think they do this because then Democrats can hypocritically insist the only way to bring everyone together is with a Democrat President. While they go whacko with hypercriticism and deliberate attempts to undermine a Republican President before he even gets his administration in place, they will turn around and insist it is the Republican President engaging in partisan politics when it is they themselves doing so. Of the two parties, it is Republicans most able and willing to put the best interests of the nation before that of their party once a Democrat takes the White House. But that isn't a Democrat President unifying anyone just because he doesn't face that same level of partisan undermining as President. It is Republicans and Democrats each revealing their true nature when faced with a President of the other party.

So although I have no unrealistic expectations about his ability to do so, as an American above all else - I really do hope and pray for a very successful Obama administration that can maintain a strong national security and bring about a booming economy again.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option.

The rest is bullshit, we have the tech to reprocess eerything and effectively store everything

80% of France electric comes from Nuclear, I think we can do the same


Bottom line- he won't build one reactor

Just curious - what does France do w/nuclear waste? Is burying it the only option? How safe is that anyway?

 

[frazzledgear]

This was before the surge which he later did recognize as a success. What else would you say when things were getting worse by the day in Iraq, I agreed with him at that point in time as well. Later though, after everyone realized how successfull the surge had been he changed his stance to phased withdraw over 16 month period. McCain likes to lie about how he still does not admit the surge worked when he clearly did, I heard him on national radio.

McCain no longer criticized him for not admitting it was successful once he did acknowledge it had been successful in O'Reilly's interview. After that interview, McCain criticized Obama for saying that even if he had known it would be so successful, he would STILL have voted against it. Which he also said in that interview. No one should be too big to admit that had they known what result, they would have changed their vote. Really one of the low points for me with Obama given what would have been the consequences for this country as well as 25 million Iraqis had we not done the surge. I also think its pretty funny that Obama said that the surge worked beyond what anyone expected! Too funny since those who advocated it, expected exactly what resulted. Only Obama obviously didn't expect it to work -not those who pushed for it. I just hope that doesn't mean Obama, who is no military expert, will so quickly dismiss the expert opinions of those who are in the future as well.