I thought the promise was 'Change'?!

from JoeUser Forums

Explain to me please, how is it that the candidate that promised 'Change' has so quickly forgotten what he promised?

We're at election day + 2 and already it seems that one side's definition of change isn't even close to what I would have expected.  Apparently, for Obama the meaning of change is change back to an administration filled with people from the Clinton administration.

Talk of Summers as Treasury Secretary, the decision to go with Rahm Emmanuel as the chief of staff, and talk of other potential members of the President-elect's administration has me thinking that the type of change that Obama was speaking of was apparently nothing more than changing from the people in these positions right not to someone, perhaps anyone, else -- except that apparently the anyone else part has to be "anyone else ... that formerly served in these capacities in the last semi-successful Democrat President's administration."

Seriously, in most ways I don't think I could care any less who Obama puts into most of the positions he'll fill as I expect whomever he puts into his cabinet will be people that we don't hear all that much from.  Heck, I expect if you asked the average man or woman on the street they couldn't name more than 3 or 4 of the people serving in Bush's cabinet and I really expect Obama's cabinet will wind up the same.  We'll recognize a few names, but for the most part we'll hear the names rarely and won't actually be able to remember them when asked.  Such is the life of most cabinet members and administration underlings.  The big cheese, aka the President, is the one who is supposed to be remembered and hey, after the fact that is as it should be with the buck stopping on their desk.

That all said, I'm still waiting to see where the change really is.  Obama energized a lot of people in this country by preaching change.  Wouldn't change imply we're gonna see some NEW faces in these positions rather than retreads (people that served previously).

Oh sure, there'll be people from the liberal side that will claim that things were much better during the Clinton administration.  I've heard that already (heh, didn't take long really...) but what those people selectively remember is that the Clinton administration also brought us the stock market bubble that Alan Greenspan later burst.

We don't need the types of change that brought us the housing market bubble and free money for buying homes (as long as you -- hopefully -- eventually make a few outrageously high payments towards the sub-prime mortgage you took out :/).  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were products of a congress primarily controlled by Democrats that wanted to deliver on the promise of home ownership for all.  Apparently they forgot to disclose that the promise had a few strings attached and that when you get money for nothing it just doesn't last.

Anyway, all I can say is where's the change?  So far I'm not seeing it.  (Impatient S.O.B. aren't I? :D)

5,487 views 14 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

Impatient S.O.B. aren't I?
End of quote

A bit, yeah. :P

2 days and you want results...remind me never to work for you. Too much pressure. x_x

~Zoo

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

Zoologist03
End of quote

You're FIRED!  Fired I say.

Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

oh, just wait.  There will be much change.... in ways you were never told.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

Anyway, all I can say is where's the change? So far I'm not seeing it. (Impatient S.O.B. aren't I?
End of quote

Hey, Obama has already had his first failure. He failed to unite the country, there is still a lot of animosity for the guy and Republicans and Democrats (Liberals and Conservatives) are still at each others throats (while maybe not as nasty as before). Now he is either appointing or considering people who already have worked those positions before under Clinton. So far the only change I have seen is that we he our first Black man as President, but I have yet to see much change on people feeling less racist about it as well.

Change is a subjective word, as I have said before, and his people were already admitting his promises will be anything but easy to keep. Till will tell, and so will we.

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

Can you honestly say your surprised?  It's easy for a candidate to say they are not a "Washington Insider" but the facts always speak for themselves. You need snakes to keep the jungle functioning. So now you know what "Change" is, revert back to previous administrations cabinet members. "Hope" will be that they are still available and didn't get caught up in some scandal. This is why so many laughed about about "Hope and Change" the first time it was mentioned, only a political newbie would fall for that (must have been a lot of them) or at least people that never followed (i.e. listened to) a previous campaign. Many saw through it (Dem's included). I don't blame Obama one bit, He'd be a fool to bring in new blood to promote the change he eluded to in his campaign. I for one am glad that he is going with people that have some experience. Sorry to the folks that expected less of the same old same old. I'm sure they will fall for that routine again (Dem's or Rep's).

Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top

What everyone seemed to forget is that many presidents promise "change" during their run for the presidency, none as much as Obama but it happens frequently.  Hell just look at Bush's speech when he accepted the nomination to run for President in 2000, he promised "change" just as Obama did.

Change is a very subjective term that people assumed meant whatever they wanted to see changed, now we will see that very little will actually "change".  The only way that anything will actually change is if the people of this country stop re-electing incumbents and start allowing some third party candidates to break thru the ranks.  Unfortunately that isn't likely to happen.  I mean just look at the incumbency rate in congress this year, sure not all races are 100% decided but the incumbency rate was still over 90% even though congresses approval rating is hovering around 20%.

Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top

I for one am glad that he is going with people that have some experience.
End of quote

I agree.  As much as Obama sounds like a radical idealist sometimes, I think in many ways he's fairly pragmatic and moderate.  I think he's trying to balance "change" versus necessity-- already there's talk about keeping on members of the Bush staff in various key roles, including Robert Gates.  Unfortunately, left-wing bloggers will undoubtedly jump on him, as they did when he voted for Bush's counterterrorism bill.  There will be some change, but it's not going to be as far-sweeping or vast as some hope or fear.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

What everyone seemed to forget is that many presidents promise "change" during their run for the presidency, none as much as Obama but it happens frequently.
End of quote

I think the difference is that they talk change, not make it THE campaign slogan.  But I am not surprised either.  I dont expect any real change, except in the taxes I pay, the words I can say, and the dmonization of the working class.

Except for hollywood of course.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hmmm, a politician who didn't actually mean what he said during a campaign? Say it ain't so!

 

 

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Politics like art is in the eye of the beholder. Right now change means Bush will be gone.:beer:

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Changing your dirty shorts for another pair of dirty shorts is change, doesn't mean it accomplishes anything.

Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top

You just wait until you see the change that the Democrats, not just BHO, make.  We will witness a totally unnecessary bloodbath as they rush the troops out of Iraq against the advise of military leaders.  We will see the terrorists in GITMO filing lawsuits against us as soon as he releases them into the US so that they can once again follow through on their devious acts.  The reason for the creation of this nation (religious freedom) will be abolished in the name of gay rights.  Late term abortions, aka murder of unborn children (yes, at that point it is a child, capable of surviving) will become the daily norm in this country.  We will see a dismantling of the military forces unlike we have ever seen before.  Yes, it will be greater than how Clinton destroyed the power of our military machine.  His promise of healthcare for everyone will fall to the wayside just as it did under Hillary.  Fuel prices will skyrocket as will all consumer goods including food.  Foreclosures will run rampant as homeowners are taxed out of their homes to pay for socialistic programs.  The American dollar will collapse as will Wall Street.  We will be under constant challenge by even third world nations who see a weak government as an invitation to launch terrorist attacks within our borders.  The Southern border will open up even further, leading to the bankruptcy of our nation as the illegal aliens rapidly become a majority force in this nation.  And the worse part is, will the Republican party be the saving force four years from now?  No, they are as bad as the Democratic party.  Neither one is free of corruption, neither party has a candidate worthy of the office of the President.  We need a non-career politician to run for President, but someone who has a backbone and not another Jimmy "Jelly Spine" Carter.  BHO, with less than a week since purchasing the Office of the President, has succeeded in riling the feathers of a Russian that is already heading back towards becoming the USSR again.  My question is, can we as a nation afford Barrack Hussien Obama as president?  And I am tired already of hearing that he is the first African-American president.  Every true African-American should be embarrassed that he would claim that distinction.  He is about 1/8 African, he is more Arab than African.  He is more white than African.  He is simply a Hienz 57 who received enough Middle East money to buy the highest office of the land.  Shame on the voters for being so blind!!

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Fltnurse1, reply 12
You just wait until you see the change that the Democrats, not just BHO, make.  We will witness a totally unnecessary bloodbath as they rush the troops out of Iraq against the advise of military leaders.  We will see the terrorists in GITMO filing lawsuits against us as soon as he releases them into the US so that they can once again follow through on their devious acts.  The reason for the creation of this nation (religious freedom) will be abolished in the name of gay rights.  Late term abortions, aka murder of unborn children (yes, at that point it is a child, capable of surviving) will become the daily norm in this country.  We will see a dismantling of the military forces unlike we have ever seen before.  Yes, it will be greater than how Clinton destroyed the power of our military machine.  His promise of healthcare for everyone will fall to the wayside just as it did under Hillary.  Fuel prices will skyrocket as will all consumer goods including food.  Foreclosures will run rampant as homeowners are taxed out of their homes to pay for socialistic programs.  The American dollar will collapse as will Wall Street.  We will be under constant challenge by even third world nations who see a weak government as an invitation to launch terrorist attacks within our borders.  The Southern border will open up even further, leading to the bankruptcy of our nation as the illegal aliens rapidly become a majority force in this nation.  And the worse part is, will the Republican party be the saving force four years from now?  No, they are as bad as the Democratic party.  Neither one is free of corruption, neither party has a candidate worthy of the office of the President.  We need a non-career politician to run for President, but someone who has a backbone and not another Jimmy "Jelly Spine" Carter.  BHO, with less than a week since purchasing the Office of the President, has succeeded in riling the feathers of a Russian that is already heading back towards becoming the USSR again.  My question is, can we as a nation afford Barrack Hussien Obama as president?  And I am tired already of hearing that he is the first African-American president.  Every true African-American should be embarrassed that he would claim that distinction.  He is about 1/8 African, he is more Arab than African.  He is more white than African.  He is simply a Hienz 57 who received enough Middle East money to buy the highest office of the land.  Shame on the voters for being so blind!!
End of Fltnurse1's quote

 

You know your keyboard has an "Enter" key, right? Ever heard of the work "paragraph"?

 

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ever heard of the work "paragraph"?
End of quote

Is that 2 Spirographs? ;)