Originally Posted by Bucco

...No comment from you on the switch from the President saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong after he and the press ridiculed and mocked McCain for saying that !!!

Here's how I might analyze what was said during the campaign.

• For the first time in memory, a President is delivering on many of the things in his campaign platform. I'm encouraged by President Obama's performance in this regard. I'm not happy that he didn't call the Congress on their earmarking in the partial year spending bill. He criticized them verabally without using the veto pen. I would have preferred the veto. We'll see how he deals with the upcoming spending bill on the new federal budget.
• Of course, President Obama is now trying to view the economic situation with a "glass half full" approach. He is the country's political leader and has a huge amount of public confidence. He's doing what he can, while still being honest, in an attempt to improve public confidence. What he's doing and saying is little different that the CEO of any company when describing the prospects for his business...describe the situation in the most positve light without misleading. I'm glad the President has adopted this approach, rather than the more pragmatic but less confidence-building approach of telling it exactly and completely as it is.
• I really don't care what either Obama or McCain said during the campaign regarding the economy. The economic situation is so dramatically different from what existed then that statements of either man are simply not applicable.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Here's how I might analyze what was said during the campaign.

• For the first time in memory, a President is delivering on many of the things in his campaign platform. I'm encouraged by President Obama's performance in this regard. I'm not happy that he didn't call the Congress on their earmarking in the partial year spending bill. He criticized them verabally without using the veto pen. I would have preferred the veto. We'll see how he deals with the upcoming spending bill on the new federal budget.
• Of course, President Obama is now trying to view the economic situation with a "glass half full" approach. He is the country's political leader and has a huge amount of public confidence. He's doing what he can, while still being honest, in an attempt to improve public confidence. What he's doing and saying is little different that the CEO of any company when describing the prospects for his business...describe the situation in the most positve light without misleading. I'm glad the President has adopted this approach, rather than the more pragmatic but less confidence-building approach of telling it exactly and completely as it is.
• I really don't care what either Obama or McCain said during the campaign regarding the economy. The economic situation is so dramatically different from what existed then that statements of either man are simply not applicable.

I respectfully disagree.

Pres. Obama has not fulfilled any promise of any kind. What has happened is that he has rubber-stamped what has been presented by Speakers Pelosi and Reid who have both had agendas for over 20 years and now find themselves in positions to get their way. The "earmarks" demonstrate who runs whom.

Pres. Obama is an excellent orator, but his performance so far is reminiscent of the first half of the movie "Dave." His cabinet, for the most part, has shown themselves as indecisive and clumsy. We're two months into a new administration and the bulwark of the federal agencies are still in by being managed career federal employees acting as caretakers with a status quo agenda, and there are no names in the queue to undergo Congressional review.

There isn't a "huge amount of public confidence" in Pres. Obama, except in selective groups who are hoping they didn't back a lame horse. The waffling on his public position regarding the "stimulus" and the condition of the economy only demonstrates the actions of a salesman who says whatever will not make the customer walk out the door. His Secretary of the Treasury sounds like one of the junior tellers in "It's a Wonderful Life," and that's far from confidence-building.

The economic condition is different today than three months ago - it's worse. If the "let's give everyone other people's money" approach continues unabated, we can all hold hands and sing "Sixteen Tons." Nobody ever got out of fiscal problems by doubling-down at the table.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Here's how I might analyze what was said during the campaign.

• For the first time in memory, a President is delivering on many of the things in his campaign platform. I'm encouraged by President Obama's performance in this regard. I'm not happy that he didn't call the Congress on their earmarking in the partial year spending bill. He criticized them verabally without using the veto pen. I would have preferred the veto. We'll see how he deals with the upcoming spending bill on the new federal budget.
• Of course, President Obama is now trying to view the economic situation with a "glass half full" approach. He is the country's political leader and has a huge amount of public confidence. He's doing what he can, while still being honest, in an attempt to improve public confidence. What he's doing and saying is little different that the CEO of any company when describing the prospects for his business...describe the situation in the most positve light without misleading. I'm glad the President has adopted this approach, rather than the more pragmatic but less confidence-building approach of telling it exactly and completely as it is.
• I really don't care what either Obama or McCain said during the campaign regarding the economy. The economic situation is so dramatically different from what existed then that statements of either man are simply not applicable.

I am not really sure what you mean "For the first time in memory, a President is delivering on many of the things in his campaign platform." From what I have seen it just may be the complete opposite.

I have been reading much about the Axlerod offices that meet twice a week to simply discuss the POLITICS and how the polls are working...it is all politics VK....he has blinded you with his oratory !!!

You didnt respond to my remarks on the "Alinsky thing" and my feeling that the "application" of those methods not only have begun but have been used since the campaign.

Have your read about some of the new "players" on the scene ? Jim Wallis, one of the trusted "men of the cloth" that President Obama actually appointed as one of the leaders of the Democratic platform. He is maybe not an avowed and open marxist but through his career has actually, in one case, said that he wished that ""more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes."

Listen, for me my worse fears just keep moving in one direction...I wish I could see something to tell me otherwise but it is not and will not happen.

Dont listen to his words...watch what he is doing !!!

I'm still willing to give the new President a couple of years before I begin to assess my interest in backing him for re-election. I would be inclined NOT to vote for his re-election because that's my own personal technique for enforcing term limits. But that depends an awful lot on who the opposing candidates might be. I can say for sure that if the opposition is any combination of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity or Bobby Jindal, I'll be voting for Obama's re-election. If the Republican ticket includes names like Charlie Crist, David Petraeus or Michael Bloomberg, chances are pretty high that I won't be voting for the incumbent.

I'd have to say that I really don't want to know who the opposition might be by the time of the mid-term elections. That would suggest that the 2012 campaign had already started two years in advance of the 2012 election day. I don't think I could bear another two years of negative campaigning, Joe the Plumber II, and whatever dirty tricks the political operatives can dream up for that long again.

By the way, Bucco, twice a week with David Axelrod is nothing compared to having almost every single decision vetted by Karl Rove.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I'm still willing to give the new President a couple of years before I begin to assess my interest in backing him for re-election. I would be inclined NOT to vote for his re-election because that's my own personal technique for enforcing term limits. But that depends an awful lot on who the opposing candidates might be. I can say for sure that if the opposition is any combination of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity or Bobby Jindal, I'll be voting for Obama's re-election. If the Republican ticket includes names like Charlie Crist, David Petraeus or Michael Bloomberg, chances are pretty high that I won't be voting for the incumbent.

I'd have to say that I really don't want to know who the opposition might be by the time of the mid-term elections. That would suggest that the 2012 campaign had already started two years in advance of the 2012 election day. I don't think I could bear another two years of negative campaigning, Joe the Plumber II, and whatever dirty tricks the political operatives can dream up for that long again.

By the way, Bucco, twice a week with David Axelrod is nothing compared to having almost every single decision vetted by Karl Rove.

Gotta admit...I agree with this post ALMOST entirely !!

1. Would eliminate Crist and add Romney to your list !

2. Just for clarification...while I agree with your basic feelings on Axlerod/Rove...TWICE a week is what we have as of now !!! There are those who think it is daily !!! Note how even today the WH is now after Cheney after going after Limbaugh ! WHY ? Makes no sense to me except for the politics of it..they surely dont need to !!