oh, no you didn't!

Wow...he really said that. Just farking amazing.

I present to youuu ... MAH BALLS

You left out a part of his quote

Wankers.

...so where, exactly, did Barack Obama make the promise that he would choose only neophytes to run his government?

/No, "change" is not an acceptable answer. Moving back to Clinton-era advisers from Bush-era advisers constitutes "change".

IlGreven: ...so where, exactly, did Barack Obama make the promise that he would choose only neophytes to run his government?

/No, "change" is not an acceptable answer. Moving back to Clinton-era advisers from Bush-era advisers constitutes "change".

YOU GOD DAMNED SOCIALIST!1
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE BLACK COFFEEE
WE'RE DOOMED!!!!
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED1

IlGreven: ...so where, exactly, did Barack Obama make the promise that he would choose only neophytes to run his government?


the point: you missed.

It's like rain on your inauguration day
It's a free ride when you've already paid
It's the good advice that you just didn't take
Isn't it ironic. Don't you think?

We need to scrap the 22nd Amendment and keep Bush in the White House (or put Carter, Clinton or Bush I there), because the only people with experience being President are current and former Presidents. When the last of them dies, we'll concede defeat and ask Britain to take us back.

There's nothing untrue or illogical in what he said. Stop whining. Only Presidents who win reelection come to the office with any 'experience'. There's no prima facie reason to assume Obama will be more incompetent in office than any other first-termer

Someone else said it more eloquently that I could in a similar thread, but I'll paraphrase:

If Obama wants to hit the ground running, he has to start with a set of experienced people who can implement the change he wants.

If Obama fails to rein in cabinet members who do not implement the change he wants, THEN you can complain that Obama is business-as-usual or that he's too inexperienced to be President.

If the Obama Administration fails to hire, cultivate and promote the next generation of progressives in middle management positions, THEN you can complain that Obama never had progressive change in mind.

Procedural Texture: Someone else said it more eloquently that I could in a similar thread, but I'll paraphrase:

If Obama wants to hit the ground running, he has to start with a set of experienced people who can implement the change he wants.

If Obama fails to rein in cabinet members who do not implement the change he wants, THEN you can complain that Obama is business-as-usual or that he's too inexperienced to be President.

If the Obama Administration fails to hire, cultivate and promote the next generation of progressives in middle management positions, THEN you can complain that Obama never had progressive change in mind.

nicely put.

Procedural Texture: If the Obama Administration fails to hire, cultivate and promote the next generation of progressives in middle management positions, THEN you can complain that Obama never had progressive change in mind.

What if someone has nothing better to do than complain? Can they have the greenlight then?

Are you implying that Obama himself has no experience? Because, quite honestly, I believe that to be a silly statement.

chemical_angel: YOU GOD DAMNED SOCIALIST!1

I hate being social myself; much more fun to be humanitarian.

Care for some barbecue?

Procedural Texture: Someone else said it more eloquently that I could in a similar thread, but I'll paraphrase:

If Obama wants to hit the ground running, he has to start with a set of experienced people who can implement the change he wants.

If Obama fails to rein in cabinet members who do not implement the change he wants, THEN you can complain that Obama is business-as-usual or that he's too inexperienced to be President.

If the Obama Administration fails to hire, cultivate and promote the next generation of progressives in middle management positions, THEN you can complain that Obama never had progressive change in mind.

So, in the words of Albert Switzer and Dostoevsky:

This.

SilentStrider: nicely put.

Thanks.
Now that I've had a chance to look, I think it was DeltaXi65 whose words from thread #4039635 I butchered. He may be a Republican, but he is wise.


bonkmeist: What if someone has nothing better to do than complain? Can they have the greenlight then?

Apparently they can, yes.

Obama said he was going to change the way Washington works. He was going to 'change the conversation'. He was going to represent us to Washington, not represent Washington to us.

I just don't know how much he can do that when he stacks his inner circle with a bunch of Washington career politicians.

Admittedly, it is a conundrum. Change? Experience? A bit of both is good, and he has a lot of cabinet left to choose. I hope he gets better balance soon.

Procedural Texture:

That is elegant, but ultimately it is just sophistry. Would it be okay to complain if he appointed Osama bin Laden to homeland security? Or should we give him a chance to prove himself too? And by your logic, no-one can say he has done any good yet - when he does, then you can defend him. Until then, everyone has to shut up? It is a nonsensical position.

Luckily I am not looking for anyone's permission to complain, or to praise. :)

I don't have any particular problem with the fact that he's appointing people who worked in the Clinton administration.

I have a problem with the fact that he's appointing people who have a history of pushing obscenely bad policies in their prospective competencies, like Eric Holder (who signed onto a pro-DC amicus brief in DC v. Heller that completely denied the existence of any individual right in the 2A) and Hillary Clinton (who bragged about pushing her husband to bomb Serbia despite the clearly stated opposition of Congress). Does that necessarily mean Obama will pursue similar policies? No, but it's not a good sign and in any event, these positions often exercise de facto autonomy over the numerous things which don't have the President's attention at any given time.

And-1: Obama said he was going to change the way Washington works. He was going to 'change the conversation'. He was going to represent us to Washington, not represent Washington to us.

I just don't know how much he can do that when he stacks his inner circle with a bunch of Washington career politicians.

Admittedly, it is a conundrum. Change? Experience? A bit of both is good, and he has a lot of cabinet left to choose. I hope he gets better balance soon.

It's very clear: Obama is the change. These appointees are his employees. They are not independent...they are not co-workers...they will not set the direction. Obama will set the direction. If he tells them to do things differently, they will do things differently, or be replaced.

After a few months in office we will see if things appear to be working well/differently. If not, then biatch away. Biatching before he is even in the Oval Office, regardless of how familiar or "inside" the appointees are, is utterly fkn retarded.

Lionel Mandrake: It's very clear: Obama is the change. These appointees are his employees. They are not independent...they are not co-workers...they will not set the direction. Obama will set the direction. If he tells them to do things differently, they will do things differently, or be replaced.

After a few months in office we will see if things appear to be working well/differently. If not, then biatch away. Biatching before he is even in the Oval Office, regardless of how familiar or "inside" the appointees are, is utterly fkn retarded.

It's simply absurd to deny that positions like Attorney General and Secretary of State often play a huge role in setting policy, at times without the President's involvement.

Besides, there's no particular reason to think Obama intends to oppose them in these areas. He's generally been receptive to arguments predicated on Clinton-style "humanitarian war" logic, and while it probably won't be a political priority for him we know he's generally opposed to the idea of a meaningful individual right in the 2nd Amendment.

And as for the idea that no one should criticize or comment on anything Obama's doing until mid-2009 is just ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason to ever shut down the public discourse on anything.

Churchill2004: And as for the idea that no one should criticize or comment on anything Obama's doing until mid-2009 is just ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason to ever shut down the public discourse on anything.

Yet, people still sound ridiculously stupid when crying about the sky falling when it's still two months before he is inaugurated.

Churchill2004: It's simply absurd to deny that positions like Attorney General and Secretary of State often play a huge role in setting policy, at times without the President's involvement.

Obama sets the direction. Period. If they go out of line and pursue their own goals without his approval, they should be fired. If they do and he doesn't, I'll be biatching about it, too.

Besides, there's no particular reason to think Obama intends to oppose them in these areas. He's generally been receptive to arguments predicated on Clinton-style "humanitarian war" logic, and while it probably won't be a political priority for him we know he's generally opposed to the idea of a meaningful individual right in the 2nd Amendment.

It will still be Obama's policy/direction, even if it happens to be close to or identical with his appointees. I agree, that would not be "change" (if most of his policies are re-hashed, not just one or two.), and I will complain if that's what develops.

And as for the idea that no one should criticize or comment on anything Obama's doing until mid-2009 is just ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason to ever shut down the public discourse on anything.

I didn't say people shouldn't criticize or comment on shiat before it happens, I just said it was retarded. I stick by that statement. And your implication that I favor "shut[ting] down public discourse" is equally retarded.

bulldg4life: Churchill2004: And as for the idea that no one should criticize or comment on anything Obama's doing until mid-2009 is just ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason to ever shut down the public discourse on anything.

Yet, people still sound ridiculously stupid when crying about the sky falling when it's still two months before he is inaugurated.

They aren't doing nearly as much harm as the people trying to discredit any less-than-supportive comment about Obama by lumping them in with the kooks. It's the same thing the Bush-supporters have done for the past eight years- the idea that anyone who disagrees can be lumped together as a monolithic bloc defines by its fringes.

George F. Will is not Sean Hannity is not reason magazine, any more than Obama = Janet Reno = Cindy Sheehan.

bulldg4life: Churchill2004: And as for the idea that no one should criticize or comment on anything Obama's doing until mid-2009 is just ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason to ever shut down the public discourse on anything.

Yet, people still sound ridiculously stupid when crying about the sky falling when it's still two months before he is inaugurated.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to sound stupid.

Honestly listening to people who didn't vote for Obama complain that he's not fulfilling their made up idea of what he would do 2 months before his inauguration is pitiful.

Perhaps they really believed the "OMG Obama's a pinko leftist socialist!" whaaaargarbal and now they are disappointed that he is,in fact, a centrist Democrat.

Since when is a state senator "inexperienced" at politics?

Lionel Mandrake: Obama sets the direction. Period. If they go out of line and pursue their own goals without his approval, they should be fired. If they do and he doesn't, I'll be biatching about it, too.

So you think Obama will be reviewing every single action they take? I'm not talking about them opposing Obama, I'm just talking about the wide range of matters they will have authority over which Obama won't concern himself with.

Lionel Mandrake: It will still be Obama's policy/direction, even if it happens to be close to or identical with his appointees. I agree, that would not be "change" (if most of his policies are re-hashed, not just one or two.), and I will complain if that's what develops.

Again- the point isn't that these people will somehow work to undermine Obama's policies. It's about pointing out the objectionable parts of these people's records, in areas that Obama will either go along with them or not intervene to oppose them, not to mention the role they'll play in advising Obama and filtering what information gets to him.

Lionel Mandrake: I didn't say people shouldn't criticize or comment on shiat before it happens, I just said it was retarded. I stick by that statement. And your implication that I favor "shut[ting] down public discourse" is equally retarded

You said people should stop criticizing Obama (saying something's "retarded" is the same as saying people shouldn't do it) because he's not President yet. In other words, there should be no public discourse about how his soon-to-be administration is shaping up (or it should be one-sided, in which case there is no discourse).

AntiNorm: Since when is a state senator "inexperienced" at politics?

Dude, "inexperienced" is code. Like "clean and articulate".

Obama has the experience of wiping his ass with the entire GOP. That's good enough for me.

I don't expect to understand every single appointment that Obama makes between now and inauguration day. And there is almost nothing that he can do between now and then that will piss me off, short of leaking an "Enslave the white race" memo. Boy, I would hate that.

Once he is actually president and starts actually doing things then he will deserve to be scrutinized. And if he fails to live up to his promises I will be as vocal against him as I have been against Bush.

But if he does deliver, then the right-wing nutjobs just need to STFU and GTFO. Oh, and maybe even start supporting him.

Churchill2004: It's about pointing out the objectionable parts of these people's records,

There have been two possible appointments already that were scuttled because of reaction on the net. There will probably be more. I think the main thing to realize here is that there has never been this kind of scrutiny before on an incoming cabinet. This is partly due to the net and partly because Obama has chosen to announce his decisions well ahead of his inauguration in order to try to prop up the market - and its working.

I'm not wild about Volker but as long as he doesn't hire Mark Penn or Karl Rove then I'll be happy.

Churchill2004: Lionel Mandrake: Obama sets the direction. Period. If they go out of line and pursue their own goals without his approval, they should be fired. If they do and he doesn't, I'll be biatching about it, too.

So you think Obama will be reviewing every single action they take? I'm not talking about them opposing Obama, I'm just talking about the wide range of matters they will have authority over which Obama won't concern himself with.

No. That's why I said "direction" instead of "every single action."

Churchill2004: Lionel Mandrake: It will still be Obama's policy/direction, even if it happens to be close to or identical with his appointees. I agree, that would not be "change" (if most of his policies are re-hashed, not just one or two.), and I will complain if that's what develops.

Again- the point isn't that these people will somehow work to undermine Obama's policies. It's about pointing out the objectionable parts of these people's records, in areas that Obama will either go along with them or not intervene to oppose them, not to mention the role they'll play in advising Obama and filtering what information gets to him.

Again - if and when this happens, it's perfectly legitimate to complain. I certainly will. Before then, it's silly.

Churchill2004: Lionel Mandrake: I didn't say people shouldn't criticize or comment on shiat before it happens, I just said it was retarded. I stick by that statement. And your implication that I favor "shut[ting] down public discourse" is equally retarded

You said people should stop criticizing Obama (saying something's "retarded" is the same as saying people shouldn't do it) because he's not President yet. In other words, there should be no public discourse about how his soon-to-be administration is shaping up (or it should be one-sided, in which case there is no discourse).

I can see it's pointless to pursue this, but I will just end this line of discussion by saying that criticizing someone's actions IS ABSOLUTELY NOT the same as saying they shouldn't do it.

Churchill2004: They aren't doing nearly as much harm as the people trying to discredit any less-than-supportive comment about Obama by lumping them in with the kooks. It's the same thing the Bush-supporters have done for the past eight years- the idea that anyone who disagrees can be lumped together as a monolithic bloc defines by its fringes.

The difference being: Obama hasn't been inaugurated yet. So, the complaining about every little thing that hasn't happened yet and that people couldn't possibly know is retarded.

Bush-supporters that labeled dissenters as kooks or unpatriotic were in the wrong because there was verifiable proof that Bush had done wrong/stupid things and the effects of those things could be seen.

Hopefully, you can see the difference between that and what has been happening over the past 2 weeks with Obama. Between the "Obama recession" and the complete and utter mind-melt that occurs with each cabinet appointment on whether Obama is living up to his "change" mantra...people are finding ever more ridiculously stupid things to complain about before policy decisions are even made.

I don't care if people dissent from the President. Go for it. It makes the country great.

But, considering this thread, the best there is to take a quote out of context and biatch about shiat that hasn't even happened yet.

That's quite a bit different from complaining about the Iraqi war or GITMO.

Churchill2004: So you think Obama will be reviewing every single action they take? I'm not talking about them opposing Obama, I'm just talking about the wide range of matters they will have authority over which Obama won't concern himself with.

i'm certain he'll be briefed on their results, especially if they start to vary from what he prescribed. and it's not like the media won't be keeping tabs and raising alarms. hell, you guys are raising alarms and they haven't even done anything yet, i'm sure any such divergence will be raised to his attention.

I would say that the most legitimate criticism of Obama's appointees so far is that he's keeping Gates on board. He's a Republican, a Bush appointee, and Obama has said that he doesn't intend to change much of anything about what the SecDef is doing any time soon.

Why aren't the FARK Independents and other Republicans not running around whining "OMFG1!! THAT'S NOT CHANGE!!!" about Gates?

Are concern trolls not really concerned after all?

Churchill2004: It's simply absurd to deny that positions like Attorney General and Secretary of State often play a huge role in setting policy, at times without the President's involvement.

Um, what? The President sets policy; that's his entire job. The Cabinet is only there to give advice and to carry out policy. Name one instance where any cabinet member has done something without the president's explicit direction.

Ah, the same old boosters with the same old talking point, crying about how Obama and his cabinet choices should be above criticism until sometime in - what, 2009, 2010? And in the process, calling everyone that disagrees with them retards and stupid and more, as if that was an argument that ever held water.

quickdraw: people who didn't vote for Obama complain that he's not fulfilling their made up idea of what he would do

You presume too much.

hahaha...

And-1: You presume too much.

I dunno man...you sure have proven yourself to be complaining about some ridiculous standard that you have set for Obama's "change" idea.

And-1: Ah, the same old boosters with the same old talking point, crying about how Obama and his cabinet choices should be above criticism until sometime in - what, 2009, 2010? And in the process, calling everyone that disagrees with them retards and stupid and more, as if that was an argument that ever held water.

What thread are you reading?

And-1: And by your logic, no-one can say he has done any good yet - when he does, then you can defend him. Until then, everyone has to shut up?

I don't have high hopes for Obama.
He'll be far better than Dubya, yes, and likely a huge improvement over Clinton, but that's faint praise.
I'm all for people monitoring and criticizing him heavily.
I'm taking a general position that even a revolutionary would need some establishment knowledge on hand for an effective transition.
And since Obama isn't a revolutionary, doubly so.

Lionel Mandrake: What thread are you reading?

Gee, I don't know - why don't you take a guess and we'll see if you can figure it out. *facepalm*

bulldg4life: you sure have proven yourself to be complaining about some ridiculous standard

Ho hum, we have done this all before. Your tired fallacies are no more convincing here than before.

Also, I wasn't talking to you. I don't really see the point.

/yes, I get the irony.

I know you don't see the point. Because when entire threads of people collectively facepalm at your ridiculous clinging to a silly idea...it's kinda obvious you aren't going to change your stance.

And-1: Lionel Mandrake: What thread are you reading?

Gee, I don't know - why don't you take a guess and we'll see if you can figure it out. *facepalm*

lol.

Procedural Texture: I'm taking a general position that even a revolutionary would need some establishment knowledge on hand for an effective transition.

Yes, and that is a fair point. As I said, I am a bit torn. I do think he needs experience; but he also need to get some voices that have not been part of the same old tired Washington conversation for 8 or 16 years.

I just object to this prevailing notion that no-one is allowed to criticise his appointments because they haven't done anything yet.

I don't have high hopes for Obama.

I actually do. He has every opportunity now to live up to not just his promises, but his supporters' expectations.

quickdraw: Honestly listening to people who didn't vote for Obama complain that he's not fulfilling their made up idea of what he would do 2 months before his inauguration is pitiful.

the hilarious part is that obama said, rather explicitly, what he meant by "change", and not once did he ever even hint that it meant bringing in a bunch of unknowns. it has always meant running a government that worried about strength of policy before worrying about politics, and running a government where expert voices weren't silenced for ideological reasons. and he wants to run a government where people who disagree with one another can still come together with common goals and get stuff done.

he wants to run the government as a successful organization rather than a temporary extension of a political party.

this is radical change from the way the american government has functioned in recent decades.

but people who were too busy calling him names the entire election cycle never actually listened to him.

And-1: You presume too much.

Nah - I wasn't talking about you in particular. Not sure who you voted for. Was it Obama?

And-1: calling everyone that disagrees with them retards and stupid and more, as if that was an argument that ever held water.

You know you've helped me out of some jams before. I have a genuine fondness for you. But dude. When did you get so sensitive? This is fark fer cryin out loud and you're no noob. Nobody was calling you or anyone else stupid.

I think some of the comments in this thread sound stupid in context but that doesn't mean that the people who made them are, in fact, stupid.

Procedural Texture:and Lionel Mandrake: make a lot of sense here. I'll be more than willing to talk about Obama's moves in February or March of 2009.

And-1: Yes, and that is a fair point. As I said, I am a bit torn. I do think he needs experience; but he also need to get some voices that have not been part of the same old tired Washington conversation for 8 or 16 years.

Well, he's kind of at a disadvantage. There has been one democratic administration in 30 years. He doesn't really have much to choose from that would share similar ideologies.

The people with any remotely relevant experience will be tied to Clinton in some form or fashion. And, given the situation the country is currently in (two wars, economy tanking)...he's going to want advisers and cabinet members that have some idea of what is going on.

I just object to this prevailing notion that no-one is allowed to criticise his appointments because they haven't done anything yet.

Well, it does seem kind of silly since many of the selections haven't been made. It's still 2 months til he is inaugurated. And, all the criticism is dependent on actions that haven't occurred yet.

I would hope that people would at least wait until Obama does or does not do something to criticize. As it currently stands, people are projecting policy decisions based on cabinet appointments and it is just silly.