Here's one...
and another...
and another...
and another...
and another...
and yet another...
Of course, the health care "kick off" was on C-Span. Nothing else. He's provided NO transparency.
My point in the post below was that his speech writers want him to return to the process of telling voters anything. The problem is that it's a long time to the next election. The urgency to change people's minds is not there. So, the speech writers (and they're no different than Bush's speech writers) want Obama to present himself as something he is not toward an end of improving the State of the Union message.
10 comments:
Jeez Michael, did something I said get under your skin? How much time did you spend digging up those cherry-picking videos?
The problem here is that you (and the people who made these videos) are still stretching the definition of "lie" to the point where it doesn't mean anything anymore. Failed promises are not lies. Having the best intentions to do something and being blocked by political maneuvering and coming up against the realities of the legislative and executive processes does not make someone a "liar".
It looks to me like you are slinging mud, distracting from the issues and generally throwing a hissy-fit tantrum that has become the signature style and par for the course for Conservative pundits. Are you putting on a show to attract readers from the War College and the Dakota Voice? There must be some hidden agenda behind these theatrics because I never expected you to be this shallow.
I think your readers deserve better than a transparent attempt at spin using a hack-job parade of YouTube videos as "proof" of "lying".
Where are BF and Newland?
Hey Michael, you want a guy who keeps his promises?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9bV_v9b8go&feature=fvw
Now that man is no liar.
Aaron:
Ouch! That hurt, and I don't mean the video.
I AM a conservative. I am NOT nuts. We have a lot of War College readers already. Every fan of Dakota Voice believes me to be Satan incarnate.
So let's call a truce with the following understanding:
1. You and I disagree on what constitutes a political lie. I think Obama was lying when he said he would operate a transparent government. You think he was mistaken?
2. When Bush and Cheney failed to keep their promise to handle taxpayer money responsibly, they were simply blocked from keeping their promise by crafty political maneuvering by the Democrats and the realities of the legislative and executive processes. Right? Me, I think they were lying.
3. I'll bet we can agree that we're thankful our grocery moeny does not depend upon the sincerity of politicians from either major party.
I liked the Jacobs story because it appeared to me the speech writers were suggesting Obama abandon his principals in order to improve his approval rating with a humdinger State of the Union.
Was "lie" a strong word. I suppose so. I'm forced by circumstance to wait and see if Obama's speech features a change in direction.
aaron,
Just one more thing...the C-Span stuff certainly isn't cherry-picked. Even C-Span is upset.
Fleming hightailed it to Mexico and Newland is gonna stay outa this one. Weelll, maybe jis' a li'l one...
Obama is president of the United States. He has to lie. It's part of the tradition.
Sanborn's tryin' to make it like a bad thing.
1. I do think he was mistaken. There must be realities of being the President of the United States that no one, even a candidate, can be aware of before taking office. They are exposed to information that can and should not be made public. We should respect that. He certainly over-played the transparency card, but I refuse to believe it was done dishonestly.
2. Bush and Cheney were lying. That doesn't mean that Obama is.
3. We already have entrusted our grocery money to the major political parties. Now is the time to re-take what we have lost... and that's not going to happen by placing blame or accusations of dishonesty. It's going to happen by reclaiming our REAL economy, by taking control locally. South Dakota is in the unique position to actually do this successfully. If we establish local control, we insulate ourselves from the turbulence of national politics.
Bottom line, I don't think it matters if he's lying or not. Maybe he is. But I don't think it accomplishes anything to jump to that conclusion.
Just a couple more thoughts...
C-Span is pissed, and rightfully so. They are the direct losers of a very specific broken promise. I support Obama, but I do not support all of his decisions, and this was definitely a disappointment. If I was C-Span and had been snubbed, I would certainly want to cast Obama in a negative light and make a point of highlighting his 'broken promises'.
That being said... truce accepted... at least on this issue ;)
Anyone who Dakota Voice followers think is evil is alright in my book.
One more thought: Bush IMO wasn't aware that he was lying to the extent that he was. But Cheney knew.
Michael said:
"I think Obama was lying when he said he would operate a transparent government."
I take issue with that statement. President Obama has brough a ton of transparency in his short time in office and been opening up parts of our government that normally are not open. Were you just talking about the C-SPAN thing or were you talking about transparency in general?
I think President Obama did a good job of explaining what happened with the C-SPAN thing during the State of the Union speech. Plus, I really don't trust conservatives when they say they want transparency on this issue. To me, I think they're just looking for another way to stop this much-needed health care legislation.
Post a Comment