election was a unequivocal thrashing of the Fascist Right wing economic (deregulation of businesses leading to
CFMA 2000 and the current Credit Catastrophe and immanent very real risk of depresssion) and foreign policies (go-it-alone, screw the World - pre-emptive war, invasion - predicated on phony intelligance - of sovereign nations) seeking to fantasize victory from the jaws of crushing defeat the
Right wing is now busy spinning the fantasy that Obama is so moderate a democrat he's almost a conservative!!! LOL.
Michael Gerson in the Washington Post
Closet Centrist makes rediculous statements such as :
"It is tempting for conservatives to crow -- or liberals to lament -- that Barack Obama's victory has somehow produced John McCain's administration." Harry Potter needs a magic wand, Gerson just uses a pen to conjure substance from the aether (or so he hopes).
and then there is this incredible statement:
"Though Obama's campaign savaged the administration as incompetent and radical, Obama's personnel decisions have effectively ratified Bush's defense and economic approaches during the past few years. At the Pentagon, Obama rehired the architects of President Bush's current military strategy -- Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Raymond Odierno. At the Treasury Department, Obama has hired one of the main architects of Bush's current economic approach." Only an idiot ... or a conservative would assert that NOT making a precipitous change of commanders of the military in the middle of a war, was an endorsement of the previous administrations policies.
Obama
must maintain continuity in Government in the midst of the two biggest problems we face (both the result of Cheney administration, Republican policies) the prevention of a complete Economic collapse and resolution of the Iraq Predicament. Removing Gates or the commanders right now, is only something an irresponsible idiot would do (like your typical Radical Right Republican). Also, neither Gates nor the military commanders SET THE Fucking policy, they were given the task of trying to make it work. (And many people on both sides of the aisle felt the appointment of Gates, and the throwing out Rumsveld, was a good move, that was necessary, in that it showed a recognition on the part of the previous administration of the need to change direction in IRAQ.)
THe same goes for the apppointment of Tim Geitner to secretary of treasury. Obama had to have someone who was very familiar with the current Wallstreet bailout. Obama doesn't have the luxury of time for anyone to get up to speed. The Obama administration, thanks to the scale of the disaster wrought by deregulation, has to hit the ground running (hell, 78% of the country would prefer it if Bush would get out now and let Obama start right now on the economoic problems). Geitner was also picked of course, as is Obama's predeliction, for his intelligence. He's recognized as being very bright. Obama has shown above all that his selections are based on qualification to do the job not ideology. THIS IS A CLEAR CHANGE IN MODUS OPERANDI FROM THE FORMER ADMINISTRATION!
Regarding the National Security Advisor appointment:
The retired Gen. Jim Jones, USMC retired, appointed National Security advisor to the incoming president, was known as one of the behind the scenes critics of Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq war. Would one call this an endorsement of the previous administration's foreign policy?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092900368_pf.html "just before Pace was named chairman he was visited by an old friend, Marine Corps Gen. Jim Jones, the NATO commander. Jones expressed chagrin that Pace would even want to be chairman. "You're going to face a debacle and be part of the debacle in Iraq," he said. U.S. prestige was at a 50- or 75-year low in the world.
He said he was so worried about Iraq and the way Rumsfeld ran things that he wondered if he himself should not resign in protest."
In Woodward's book "State of Denial" Jones is attributed to have said to his friend Gen Peter Pace, who was being considered for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: ""You should not be the parrot on the secretary's shoulder."
also, in Tuesday's USA Today,
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/12/left-behind.html Jonah Goldberg, editor at large of National Review Online - attempts to salve Conservative egos with an attempt to declare Obama's still forming team as a replay of the Clinton administration. Again, the author chooses to ignore two facts: 1) the urgency of our current situation makes experience and proven practical competence utterly important in appointees resumes, and 2) it is the guy at the top who SETS policy. Obama, as he has said, wants opinions from independent, smart, thinking people. But Unlike The Puppet which conservatives don't realize does NOT serve as a model for Democratic candidates and presidents - Obama will be making the decisions and setting the policy.
This last part is a hard one for conservatives to grasp. Goldberg asks: "who will Obama rely on?". What Goldberg doesn't understand is there are peoople who are capable of listening to opinions, advice and debate among advisors who can then make an informed decision - and then take responsibility for it. THese conservatives are such followers and responsibility dodgers (I only went along with everybody else, I didn't make the decision!) they can't seem to comprehend that an individual can listen to ideas and debate and weigh the evidence and then come up with their own decision. They are so used to group think and crowd behavior with it's comfortable distribution of responsibility (to a vanishing extent) that they can't imagine someone making a decision and taking responsibliity for it. It's an alien way of operating to these "group-think" idiots.
Conservatives make it difficult for themselves because they think in very absolute terms. With their use of word "liberal" (they wore out "pinko") they try to depict a group just as desperately ideological devoted as they are. In fact, liberals are people who look at the facts pertaining to an issue and then, if the facts support it, arrive at position on the issue. "Liberal" is a term which encompasses a range of opinions asto how one gets to a certain policy objectives. It turns out that "liberals" are pragmatic and are interested in approaches that work the best. In fact,
that's what makes them "liberals". The term "liberal", as a recent poll has shown, represents goals and ideals for the country that are supported by most people in the United States. THe conservatives have been, for quite some time now, trying to sell the notion of a liberal as a group just as extreme and ideoligically rigid as they are. It's a notion they perhaps actually believe (perhaps they need to believe it), but once again, it's a belief they hold too in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
