It is clear that obama is picking longtime Democratic operatives, most of them from the Clinton Administration.
Now, I really don't see that is a problem, that is what usually happens.
However, should things "change" this time?
Is it okay for conservatives to get all over Barry for picking the same tired hacks that were involved with Clinton? I mean, he wants to make attorney general a guy who lied and pushed through the Mark Rich pardons for Christ sake.
Here is why it might be okay.
1. Liberals love to say that conservatives can not talk about morals and family values the second they do something wrong.
so
2. In this case, Obama's only real message, and the only thing most people who voted for Obama can say about him is that he will "change" things. Therefore, shouldn't he be open to criticism that normally would not be given at this time because he seems to be going against his primary campaign message?
Your thoughts...
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Is if fair to attack Obama for his lack of "change"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
You laughed at the change theme during the campaign because it was empty talk. Are you claiming change means bringing in a bunch of people nobody's ever heard of? Every president-elect taps members of previous administrations. These are the people who understand how things get done. Bush you will recall, also talked a lot about change when he ran in 2000. Who came along with him? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell...you might remember tired Clinton hack George Tenet was part of Bush's team and helped get him that "slam dunk" in Iraq.
Bush talked about changing the immoral behavior and ethics in Washington..
If you take a pill and calm down you will see that I agree this is what all other administrations do..but THIS time there is going to be "change"
My question was: Is this fair?
Is it fair to treat Obama like liberals treat conservatives in regards to morality and ethics..
And a bigger question: Is it fair the media beat the shit out of Bush from day one and are basically on the campaign staff of Obama?
I wouldn't expect conservatives to give your boy Barry a pass. In fact I hope they don't. The MSM always fawns over new presidents, especially young and charismatic ones. Once he is inaugurated he'll make plenty of mistakes and the media should report on that. You will have to cite some examples of beating up Bush from Day One...as I recall, the NYT printed just about everything that GOP anonymous sources handed them in the run-up to the Iraq war. We all deserve a transparent govt and to some extent that is supposed to be one of the MSM's main functions. The fact Washington DC is "changing" is obvious. Bush is out, Obama's in.
911 changed the MSM's beat down on Bush for about 9 months...
Don't you remember media outlets getting all over Bush the afternoon of 911 for not going directly to the White House, and the only reason they stopped getting all over him was because the American people put their foot down...
The short answer is no game. However the proof is in the pudding. I would suggest not defending or rejecting until you see the results. That's my position anyway.
I also don't remember beating on Bush from day one and if you look at historical job performance or popularity numbers I think you will find most people gave him a looooooong time.
I would say that we should give him about 6 months from the time that he is, you know, inaugurated as President. If we havent seen any real changes in the fundamental way that he governs compared to past Presidents, then I will be there right along with you criticizing him.
Post a Comment