The decisions and statements Obama has made thus far say one thing. They say he is already on the wrong path. My bet is in his first two years he will side with every single majority vote there is. You could say that he will be siding with the democrats but have you looked at the congress ratings lately? Obama picking center-right positions for the executive branch is absolute proof that he is the ultimate "yes man". He is already on the wrong path. The democratic and republican congress is the ultimate "yes man" congress. Anyone know of the good things congress has done in the last two years? Anyone know the congress approval rating? If Obama follows the same trend of listening to congress and being the man trying to keep people happy than his approval ratings will undoubtedly correlate with the Congress' very quickly. His actual performance as president will of course suffer as well. He is already on the wrong path. Also his executive branch picks display one thing beyond all else. What it displays is that Obama would be willing to go to the ends of the earth to keep everyone happy. This basically means he may still have clear judgment but he is not willing to find the things that need to be sacrificed in order to obtain the best opportunity cost. You could say bailouts relate to this. He is already on the wrong path. Oh but NeoRio Obama isn't even president yet. Oh but undying under analyzing Obama supporter Obama's agreement with every single thing congress has said thus far with the hiring of an executive branch that is attempting to keep people happy forecasts what type of president Obama will be. I don't care if you dislike or like Obama. You might think Obama is still the agent of change the country needs and you may also disagree with all my accusations as well but there is one thing no one can deny. If Obama follows the path of congress he will fail.
How does your "claim" even begin to apply to the appointments of Robert Gates, Jim Jones, and Eric Shinseki?
He had the most liberal voting record in the senate. His appointments of center right people only display that he wants to keep everyone happy. Attempting to keep everyone happy will decrease his ability to make decisions. Decisions always come with sacrifice and when you can't sacrifice anything you can't make clear decisions. Hence the present vote. The bottom line is that if Obama does not man up and if he doesn't break his correlation with congress than he will be the poster boy for this whole mess in the coming years.
Once again, you show yourself making a most absurd assumption . . . thinking that appointments of center-right cabinet members have anything to do with "keeping people happy". The guy won in a LANDSLIDE and had a mandate to pretty much appoint whoever he wished. Why he needed to "keep people happy" once he had ALREADY been elected by a huge majority is a most absurd assumption on your part. But for some bizarre reason, you are unable to comprehend this. Perhaps if you were to put down your partisanship bi-focals for just one minute, you might see that the guy has been appointing the "best, brightest, and most capable" as opposed to George Bush who based his appointments primarily on loyalty and cronism that lead to totally incompetent "leaders" such as Rumsfeld, Chertoff, Gonzales, Pat Wood ( FERC ), John Reich ( OTS ), and Christopher Cox (SEC) - - - just to name a few. Again, according to you . . . Robert Gates was not hired because he was the most capable man to be Secretary of Defense; to wind-down troops in Iraq and to increase our military presence ( to 60,000 troops ) in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan border, not too mention dealing with several very large military programs that are coming up . . . from Lockheed's JSF 22 and 35, to the KC-135 Tanker Program, and the FCS. No, he was appointed by Obama because he is a "YES" man. Congratulations, your logic and intellect are most absurd.
Yeah . . . I guess that's why he has directed Robert Gates to develop a military strategy to increase troop presence in Afghanistan by 100% It's also why he appointed 1997 Noble Prize winner and Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy. Yep, no core values or stand there! Congratulations. Your brain is about the size of a peanut.
Landis i understand that you think I am bias. I think you are bias as well. Everyone is somewhat bias. Let me first say that Obama's picks are my opinion and that I think the picks say something about him. I think they say he is a yes man. You have a different opinion but merely throwing my entire argument out the window isn't the best idea. Afterall I don't even care to analyze anything much further about Obama's picks. What matters is that this country has been on the wrong track for quite some time. What group is to blame? I think it is congress that we need to put the blame on. Go ahead and blame Bush as well but we could have pee-wee herman as president and if the congress is dumb enough to follow him than we really need to blame the congress. Surely republicans in congress started the trend and the democrats in the last two years could do nothing but incease the already lacking approval ratings. So far this is what I see. I see a downward trend when it comes to congress. The American people want to get out of Iraq and congress does not get out of Iraq. The American people oppose the bailouts and congress passes bailouts. There is much else to mention that I am not willing to write about. So now we have Obama. What are the chances Obama will actually stray from the path of congress? You do agree that the congress is not competant don't you? See Landis you must align the dots. Congress is not competant. Obama follows each step of the Congress. Therefore if Obama correlates with the Congress than Obama is not competant either. I don't question Obama's intellect. I question his will power to be on the other side of an argument.
First off, the word is INCOMPETENT. There is no letter "A". Second of all, you make a rather absurd ASSUMPTION in thinking that Obama "follows each step of Congress". How anyone can actually make such a claim when the President-elect has not even been sworn into office yet, is ridiculous. There is no "track record" yet to even begin to make such a claim. You also imply in your post that the Congress wields incredible power while the President of the United States simply sits passively at the table. - - - Given the incredible spending spree that Congress has been on for the past 8 years and our National Debt doubling to over $11 Trillion . . . did you ever notice how President Bush rarely used his VETO pen to stop all of the spending??? He could have, but he didn't. I think that you severely underestimate how powerful the President can be in formulating and developing effective policy and leadership in this Country. A strong leader develops a consensus and gets policy implemented by Congress. I would suggest to you that the reason that Congress has ridden roughshod all over President Bush is because he wasn't a LEADER in the first place. For 6 years, all the Republican majority Congress did was SPEND, SPEND, SPEND with nary a veto. The last 2 years of horrible approval ratings was simply the Democratic majority in Congress letting Bush twist in the wind for political reasons, because they knew that he was a lame-duck, and so was his Party. It was political gridlock at its finest and everyone knew it. No surprise there. But getting back to my point, aside from the military "staying the course" policy in regards to Iraq, can you name any other policy or programs that President Bush was able to get through Congress besides "No Child Left Behind" and the fiscally irresponsible "Medicare Modernization Act of 2003"? Again, it comes down to how strong and effective of a LEADER one is. In my opinion, Bush was neither and as a result, government was merely on "auto-pilot" for much of his Administration. Thus, Congress took over the leadership vacuum.
Your seriously saying the democrats would screw the country for two years in order to prove a point that Bush sucked? Are you seriously saying that? If your seriously saying that than the democrats should not be in power. It's funny how you don't perceive the absolute negativity you portray upon the democratic party when you actually say that the democratic party was willing to screw it's country in order to show that Bush was a dumbass. What it sounds like is that you are very insecure when it comes to actually admitting that the democrats were in charge for the last two years. It actually sounds like kindergarten excuses. Also your saying that the democrats that were in congress were more interested in proving that Bush was a dumbass instead of actually helping their political careers. Landis you saying this is like a little kid on a losing baseball team saying that he didn't actually lose, he just never tried. Do you realize what you sound like yet? You sound like a little kid in denial about the democrats doing a horrible job over the last two years. Because they did such a horrible job you have to come up with an absolute lie in order to make your party look better than they actually are. Your like a fat ugly girl making fun of the pretty girls. You would love to be more popular but your party has been so pitiful in the last two years that you need to come up with excuses to make Obama look like he is not about to fall into a pile of shit. Have fun talking about your small issues but when it comes to the ones that are crucial Obama is just another yes man.