Obama is crucified because of "big government spending" -- he proposes a

[gateley]

freeze, and the same people are outraged.

I don't know how I feel about the freeze and that's not the point. The point is, the guy is between a rock and a hard place. What a mess.

Rant off, I guess.

[timeforpeace]

1. Nope, not spending. The freeze is a sop to the right to get GOP votes, which won't work.

[Chulanowa]

2. Some people have nothing but outrage

In greater society, these people are called psychopaths.

[rudy23]

3. The same people are outraged? I thought the R's were outraged over spending, and us over a freeze.

He doesn't have to be between a rock and hard place if he honors the people who voted a Democrat into the Presidency, instead of trying to satisfy those who are trying to take him down. We had an election between the two parties already. We won. That means either the rock, or the hard place can go away for four years.

[gateley]

5. I agree, but he's NOT just trying to honor the Dems who voted him in, he's trying

to still get bipartisan support.

I've heard some Reps (please don't ask me who) complain about the freeze, but then, that's part of the New Rule: Whatever Obama proposes, do not support it.

[rudy23]

8. If he's so keen on bipartisan support, he shouldn't have run as a D, or should've picked an R as VP

The reason we have elections is so we can choose to go with a certain ideology over a recently failed one. We chose a new direction, and Obama refuses to budge an inch in that direction. I don't know whether it's a lack of courage, conviction, or principles, but it's not good, whatever it is.

[gateley]

10. Yeah, hindsight and all. We didn't know (or I sure didn't at least) that he would

be so cautious, or whatever the word should be. I like the idea of bipartisanship in theory, but it just isn't possible these days, as you well know.

[Marr]

4. He's not between a rock and a hard place. He's between

his own supporters and the opposition party. That's not a confusing place all, for anyone who actually wants to represent their supporters.

Of *course* the opposition party is going to criticize him. That's what they're supposed to do. They're supposed to have a different, irreconcilable agenda. The problem here is that Obama's agenda isn't all that different from the opposition party, and he can't sell it to his supporters.

[lame54]

7. He can give them ice cream and they would complain that there aren't enough sprinkles

[dorkulon]

6. That's what you get for trying to please people who are determined to hate you.

He's listening to the wrong people.

[CTD]

9. It should tell him all he needs to know about how to proceed.

F**k pandering to the "moderates". Just do what we elected you to do.

[gateley]

11. Yes. We're waiting. nt

[Journeyman]

12. He needs to consider an issue, take measure of the arguments, and make a decision. . .

Absent any new information, the decision made should remain -- if it was good yesterday, and nothing about it changes today, it is a wise decision for tomorrow, too.

Mr Lincoln was once criticized for being too slow to make a decision. By way of explanation, he told his critics: "I may walk slow but I never walk back."

I don't expect or want Mr Obama to be pigheaded like George W and never question (let alone change) a decision. When facts change, opinions change. Nothing mushy about that. But in instances where all that differs are extraneous issues of no direct consequence, or simply the tenor of the critique, then the validity of the original decision should be reaffirmed and not cast aside for seemingly short-term gain, or worse, in a vain attempt to improve electoral prospects.

[gateley]

13. I was impressed that he took the time to solicit additional input regarding

Afghanistan, regardless of the criticisms for doing so. (Unfortunately, he didn't ask US, otherwise we wouldn't be sending more troops :7)

And because of that willingness, I have cautious faith that he would also not hesitate to change a decision should the facts warrant it.