No, this isn't a criticism so just follow along. Obama is the one who preached "Hope and Change". His message was one against the establishment and "business as usual" of the professional politicians in Washington D.C. The message hit a chord with many Americans and he won the election. In the subsequent two years that change hasn't been fully realized to the degree that many more Americans would like. Thus, to continue the promised change in Washington, the Tea Party emerged. Therefore, in an unintended way, Barack Obama is the unofficial founder of the Tea Party. The message of "Hope and Change" is still going strong against the career politicians in D.C.
Showing posts with label change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label change. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Unofficial Founder of the Tea Party
No, this isn't a criticism so just follow along. Obama is the one who preached "Hope and Change". His message was one against the establishment and "business as usual" of the professional politicians in Washington D.C. The message hit a chord with many Americans and he won the election. In the subsequent two years that change hasn't been fully realized to the degree that many more Americans would like. Thus, to continue the promised change in Washington, the Tea Party emerged. Therefore, in an unintended way, Barack Obama is the unofficial founder of the Tea Party. The message of "Hope and Change" is still going strong against the career politicians in D.C. 
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Where's the Change?
More old people from a retro-administration? Where’s the change? Where’s the young fresh new ideas? On the bright side, Obama's obviously in favor of recycling.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/05/panetta.cia/index.html
Some will argue that it's better to fill these positions with people who are tested rather than untested. Untested? That's what Obama is and we're supposed to trust him. Wouldn't "change" from old-school Washington politics require some untested people to be put in charge?
The change we were promised isn't just change from Bush. It's supposed to be change from old-school Washington politics. Change from Bush was inevitable. Whoever won was change from Bush. The change Obama promised was away from all the old Washington politics. Obama promised us more than just change from Bush.
It looks like Obama may have found that politics is a dirtier game than he thought. It seems he's traded a lot away to the Clintons to get her to back off and let him win. Now we get a "retro" adminstration. Our change is from Bush and back to Clinton.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/05/panetta.cia/index.html
Some will argue that it's better to fill these positions with people who are tested rather than untested. Untested? That's what Obama is and we're supposed to trust him. Wouldn't "change" from old-school Washington politics require some untested people to be put in charge?
The change we were promised isn't just change from Bush. It's supposed to be change from old-school Washington politics. Change from Bush was inevitable. Whoever won was change from Bush. The change Obama promised was away from all the old Washington politics. Obama promised us more than just change from Bush.
It looks like Obama may have found that politics is a dirtier game than he thought. It seems he's traded a lot away to the Clintons to get her to back off and let him win. Now we get a "retro" adminstration. Our change is from Bush and back to Clinton.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Obama's "Retro" Administration
Where’s the change? According to this article (Obama Transition to Power (CNN)) more than half of Obama’s appointees thus far were in the Clinton administration.
We're not saying they’re not qualified to do the job but are they the ONLY people qualified to do the job? Where's the change if Obama’s comprising his administration mostly of old Washington insiders? Where’s the NEW Washington we were promised? They’re the same Clintonista’s that ran the country over eight years ago but, like most of us, they’re older, grayer and heavier now.
We were told we wouldn’t get four-more-years of Bush but four-more-years of Clinton was never mentioned.
This was probably part of the backroom deal that got Hillary to back down during the convention rather than go “scorched earth” and win the nomination. Couple that with Hillary possibly being part of the administration and Bill may have found a way to get his third term he lamented about in 2000. He said at the time that if he could run for a third term he would.
But, all-in-all THAT’S not change. It’s more of the same just “retro” same.
We're not saying they’re not qualified to do the job but are they the ONLY people qualified to do the job? Where's the change if Obama’s comprising his administration mostly of old Washington insiders? Where’s the NEW Washington we were promised? They’re the same Clintonista’s that ran the country over eight years ago but, like most of us, they’re older, grayer and heavier now.
We were told we wouldn’t get four-more-years of Bush but four-more-years of Clinton was never mentioned.
This was probably part of the backroom deal that got Hillary to back down during the convention rather than go “scorched earth” and win the nomination. Couple that with Hillary possibly being part of the administration and Bill may have found a way to get his third term he lamented about in 2000. He said at the time that if he could run for a third term he would.
But, all-in-all THAT’S not change. It’s more of the same just “retro” same.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Audacity of Bad Judgment
At the Republican Convention Sarah Palin ad libbed a joke in response to audience cheers from Alaska women: "You know what the difference is between a hockey mom and a pit bull?" she asked, pausing perfectly. "Lipstick!" Since then there have been signs at the McCain/Palin rally's along the same lines stating "Read My Lipstick" and so forth with the "lipstick" theme. Sarah Palin, as far as we know, is the only one of the four candidates that wears lipstick on a regular basis (although I have my suspicions about Biden). Thus, the word "lipstick" is hers in this Presidential Campaign.
Yesterday, after commenting on the Republicans policies (or lack thereof), Senator Barack Obama punctuated his comments with the line "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig". Granted this is a very old line used to imply that no matter how much you pretty up something it doesn't change what it is. An ugly pig is still a pig and a bad policy is still a bad policy.
Yesterday, after commenting on the Republicans policies (or lack thereof), Senator Barack Obama punctuated his comments with the line "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig". Granted this is a very old line used to imply that no matter how much you pretty up something it doesn't change what it is. An ugly pig is still a pig and a bad policy is still a bad policy.
John McCain has used a similar line in the past about wrestling with pigs. When asked about Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's criticism of him as "a blatant opportunist'' McCain replied that he doesn't want to "go down" to that level and "I think it was Bob Dole, you know, that said you don’t want to get into a wrestling match with a pig, You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” This was an analogy about sinking to a low level rather than actually calling anyone a name.
Even IF Obama didn't intend to call Sarah Palin a pig was it a good idea to exercise bad judgment and use a line that can be construed as if he was calling Sarah Palin a pig? Even IF McCain was calling Howard Dean a "pig" is it a good idea to sink to the same low level and call the most popular Governor in the United States a "pig"? Is sinking to lower levels going to get us the change we need in Washington?
Awhile back Barack Obama convinced many people that while he lacked experience he would make up for it with good judgment. I try to pick out the rare things he says that I agree with in an attempt to accept him as our President should he win in November but then he goes and does silly childish things like this. When is this "good judgment" going to kick in? It seems he also has a lack of experience with GOOD judgment as well.
Even IF Obama didn't intend to call Sarah Palin a pig was it a good idea to exercise bad judgment and use a line that can be construed as if he was calling Sarah Palin a pig? Even IF McCain was calling Howard Dean a "pig" is it a good idea to sink to the same low level and call the most popular Governor in the United States a "pig"? Is sinking to lower levels going to get us the change we need in Washington?
Awhile back Barack Obama convinced many people that while he lacked experience he would make up for it with good judgment. I try to pick out the rare things he says that I agree with in an attempt to accept him as our President should he win in November but then he goes and does silly childish things like this. When is this "good judgment" going to kick in? It seems he also has a lack of experience with GOOD judgment as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)