Obama Wins! - So What's Next?

Remove all ads!

Military policy regarding gays is the most likely place he will start, if he feels inclinded to deal with the "gay" issue. On the recent MoveON polling of it's members to help set the agenda, gays rights came out near the bottom of priorities for progressives. The top three issues were healthcare, the economy and job creation and green technology/climate change. Those three issues turned out to be the same as the three that I voted for on MoveOn's ballot that was sent to me. Here was the result:

Goal
1. Universal health care 64.9%
2. Economic recovery and job creation 62.1%
3. Build a green economy, stop climate change 49.6%
4. End the war in Iraq 48.3%
5. Improve public schools 21.6%
6. Restore civil liberties 16.8%
7. Hold the Bush Administration accountable 15.2%
8. Gay rights/LGBT equality 8.6%
9. Increase access to higher education 7.6%
10. Reform campaigns and elections 5.7%

Obviously, this does not represent all progressives, but MoveOn is one of the largest organizations for progressives.

http://www.pol.moveon.org/2009/agenda/results/results2.html

 

That doesn't sound too far off the 8 that I listed on page 3. Healthcare, Economy, Environment, Edning the war...

The only thing I disagree with is the bi-partisan agenda with number 7. I really don't think picking a fight with the Republicans is wise...

 

Well, if the Bush administration has broken the law, it ought to be held responsible by people from both sides. I doubt anyone has gone easy on Blagojevic because they don't want to "pick up a fight" with the Democrats - nor should they.

 

I'm not saying let the actual criminals off the hook, but don't go overboard persecuting the Republicans. In Canada, we're seeing our government paralyzed by infighting because the parties won't get along...

 

Well, sure - prosecuting someone for purely political reasons is an abuse of power, no less). However, a criminal should still face prosecution even if s/he is a politician - actually, imo they should be held to even harsher standards because they are politicians and wield public trust and money.

 

I don't get it. Is Bush going to leave office without having ordered a massive strike on Iranian targets? Isn't it supposed to be a clear and present danger we can't negotiation with that only understands force or something?

Won't someone please think of all the children who will be vaporized when the Iranians get nukes?

 

Yeah, the Iranian government is pretty wacko, and I don't really think reason will work (though supporting the little people may), but they're probably a few years from nukes at least.

 

Oh. So because their inevitable nuclear attack is a few years away, it's totally fine to leave things up to the dirty hippy who believes in negotiating. Well, that makes sense.

My point, such as it is, is that it's really interesting that the right wing noisemakers (like, VDH, not Snook) who were incessently yammering about Iran are now conspiciously silent. It's almost as though they were completely full of male bovine excrement. Because if they actually believed the stuff they were saying, shouldn't they be doing their damnedest to get Bush to launch a last-minute attack?

 

This is just too funny
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama

Anyone else see the irony in creating more bureaucracy to eliminate Gov't waste & ineffeciiency? (Why this fox will improve hen house productivity & security greatly!)

In the immortal words of H. Simpson DOH!!

 

martaug, how exactly would you suggest eliminating government waste? With a blindfold and a dartboard?

 

Cutting the number of senior positions rather than making new ones would seem to be a good technique at first glance!

But that, of course is simplistic. The fact remains, though, that the whole deal looks like something out of a Dilbert cartoon.

 

No No drew, wood-chippers are much more efficient(kinda messy though)

Notice that i didn't criticise the appointment just that it is ironic to make something smaller & less costly they had to make it bigger & more expensive first.

Now i do make fun of the fact that Obama's claim to fame is "change! we are gonna bring change to washington!" yet almost everyone he has announced for an appointment is just the same old people that have been there all along.
He just proved he is a typical politician after all.

 

Two Words: Reality Television. Think about it. Bring these Beaurocrats in front of Judge Judy or some other entertaining persona and make them defend themselves and why they should keep their government position. if they do a poor job, have some tag line to get rid of them.

They could even use advertising revenues to finance healthcare and tax breaks until the savings from reduced government waste kick in...

 

Gnarrf's idea has merit -- Judge Judy would be good but I'd rather see the ***** from "The Weakest Link" sticking it to fat cats of all political stripes.

 

I could use some of those drugs you're taking.

I understand that this is satire and that you are just trying to be funny by making fun of American pop culture. The sacry part is that there are people who believe that what they see on TV is "reality."

 

I hear that Obama wants to get 80 senators to vote for his stimulus package. He wants there to be a bipartizan consensus on the stimulus plan. On the surface, I understand why he would want to do this. He has run on a platform of reaching across party lines, and with something like this, when you're going to spend aoubt $0.75 trillion, it makes sense to have everyone on board. (That and if it doesn't work your can deflect some of the blame to Congress.)

On the other hand, after unveiling his plan today, there were quite a few grumbles heard from both Democrat and Republican Senators alike, making his goal of 80 votes seem overly optimistic. Moreover, the only thing I've heard for the past several weeks is how something needs to be done quickly to improve the economy. If it comes down to a decision of getting 80 senators on board and not passing this legislation until March, versus getting a more reasonable number like 60 (or heck even 51) senators to agree in February, it would seem like taking the 51 in February would be the better option.

Granted, if all he gets is 51, that is essentially going to mean that no Republicans are voting for it, and we're back to the same old politics. Just like the Republican Congress rolled over to all of Bush's wishes when they had the majority, we may seem the same thing happening now that the Democrats control the White House and the Presidency, which may not be a bad thing if the stimulus plan works. If it works, then the Republicans would look bad in opposing it. Of course, the exact opposite would be true if it doesn't work - the Republicans would look good for opposing it, while the Dems would have a lot of egg on their face.

 

If said package didn't work, the Dems would have a pretty easy time fobbing most of the blame off on the Republicans -- as in "our policies didn't work miracles, but there's only so much that can be done after 8 years of stunning incompetance."

 

If it doesn't work, what are people going to say? "Let's go back to those 'wonderful days' of a Republcian run government again?" Not likely. That's why "change" is important right now. If neither of the parties care to reinvent themselves, people will no longer have faith in either of them.

At this point it doesn't matter what the politicains say; it's the results that will speak loudest to the voters. If the Republicans, or the Democrats, believe that the same old empty rhetoric and meaningless platitudes of the last 10 years or so will sway the voters, without some real results, they better make room for a thrid party.

 

Uh....the "same old people" haven't been in power for 8 years, and some of those "same-olds" are Bush appointees that Obama has decided to keep. The ex-Clinton people are obviously a change from the current status quo and keeping the appointees - even just a few of them - from an outgoing administration from the other side of the aisle is hardly politics as usual.

...but not at second glance. If a government department is hemorrhaging money unnecessarily, removing oversight is unlikely to solve the problem. Some senior positions are unnecessary, but arbitrarily removing them and simply hoping that the positions you eliminated weren't critical is a poor plan of action - akin to playing russian roulette with the department you're trying to "fix". Someone is going to have to actually do the research and determine where cuts can be made and efficiency improved, and anyone actually qualified to do the job is unlikely to do it for free - and even more unlikely to be willing to foot the bill for the research.

 

If you don't count the cloud at the Motley Crue concert in 2005, I've been off the dope for 7 years now, and no booze for 6 and a half...

You're just now realizing that people are freakin' morons?

What, you expected change?

That faith is dwindling all the time. If they refuse to put aside their bickering, then the American people are screwed...

Actually that may not be a bad idea. The system in the US is designed so that it might not be so easy to paralyse as the Canadian system...