<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/86OaawN0F5M&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/86OaawN0F5M&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
My impression of his change mantra was always that he was going to change the way the administration makes decisions and conducts itself, not necessarily change all the decisions being made. In other words, the compromising was a big part of the change. In that way the two were perfectly compatible.
So there is 125% blame to spread around? As for buying legislators, this is where we disagree. You state that it is largely because of the Republicans. I think that both parties are laughing all the way to the bank.
That was part of his change mantra but frankly I doubt many, especially liberals, would have been very excited if they understood that what he meant was he was just going to be nicer to Republicans.
you can't be f'in serious...the US cannot afford to let the Taliban have free reign over that region. CANNOT.
the man is a pragmatist. Both in terms of policy and in politics. I would want to say he's being cautious, but if that were the case, he wouldn't have introduced health care and a massive economic stimulus. I don't completely understand the wiretapping policy. I don't think corporations should be sued for complying with gov't authority. They should be protected. Nor do i think the means through which a gov't collects info should be entirely reveals. But there needs to be accountability on who and why people are targeted for wiretapping. If a warrant is not obtained, at somepoint, judicial review should occur and a warrant issued post-mortem. But the blanket scanning of communication is troubling.
The job wiull take decades and is a SF war. Sending more troops to fufill a campaign promise is dumb. SF does not run around looking for a fight. They run around looking for friends.
It would take a constitutional amendment, but I would support fully publicly funded campaigns. The government could get bulk advertising rates for all media (TV, print, internet) and dole it out equally to the candidates. I bet we could elect the entire US Congress as well as the President for the same money that Clinton or Obama spent alone in the last election cycle.
agreed. as someone who really finds himself in the middle (more conservative financially and liberal socially), "change" meant a shift away towards unilateral, uncompromsing, and cronyism politics. i think he's kept his word in that regard.
