Tom Daschle? who's head of staff went on to manage the RIAA? who has such ties to such lobbying as, we have only rarely seen before and HE is who obama chooses. change? look, I know I was saying obama is just another politician, but, that I have to be the one making this thread, with all the obama decriers we have in this forum, astounds me.
who did you expect? Joe the Plumber? He's going to run a government, not put on the "change" show for your benefit. If he wants to get anything done he will need people who can navigate the system.
Change is just a word used to help get him elected. Why do people always buy what the politicians sell them when they should look back through the past politicians and see that the BS they sell them is always BS? I'll look back in 4 years and try to see if this change he campained on was really change or just new faces playing the same game.
I am well aware of WHY he is doing it, I am just surprised no one is here going "see people who elected him on the premise of change, he's surrounding himself with nothing but the same people who have been doing this forever, just like bush did" it surprises me that I had to make the thread.
It surprises me, too, Dave. But one thing i have to say ~ good on you, for actually looking at BOTH sides of the coin! :cheers2:
I would have thought Secretary of HHS would have been a better fit for Hillary, with her healthcare proposal under her husbands first term.
Pff! You didn't actually BELIEVE Obummer when he gave all that bullshit lip-service to being all about "CHANGE," did you?!
I've been making that point on other forums. I haven't been back here in a long time, and I'm glad you handled that one for me in my absence. Obama is a fucking FRAUD. As the Zen master said: "...We shall see."
You don't appoint someone who lost a battle to fight it all over again. Yes, the experience is valuable, but the albatross around your neck is worse. As for Obama being a fraud, I didn't vote for a reckless ideologue. When I donated to his campaign back in January, it was the thoughtful pragmatist with values similar to mine that won my vote. I am hoping for slow, gradual, and long-lasting change on the order of Reagan, not quick victories that evaporate overnight in the style of Bush. This is the package we were sold - a deliberate, cool under pressure, reasonable man - capable of effecting permanent change. We have suffered so much from recklessness, incompetence, and blind adherence to doctrine. I am heartened to see Obama surround himself with a white house team and cabinet that will serve as a check on his own ambitions. People who can play the game hard enough to change it, rather than just waste time enjoying the laurels of temporary accomplishment.
A couple gems from Tom Daschle, that bastion of integrity and consistency of principles putting the welfare of the nation before political expediency . . .
You are kidding right? Well for one if Daschle had integrity it wouldn't seem that Hussein's ownership of WMD's was entirely dependent on whether Daschle was Senate Majority Leader or Minority Leader . . .
Have you seen the rest of the Cabinet 'line up?' Out of the 8 positions i looked at, ONLY ONE was not associated with the Clintons... Treasury Sec = Timothy Geithner (mentor = Summers) Sec of State = Hillary Clinton Nat'l Economic Council = Laurence Summers Commerce Sec = Bill Richardson Sec of H&HS = Tom Daschle Nat'l Security Adv = Gen James Jones * ....................... or James Steinberg Atty Gen = Eric Holder Homeland Sec = Janet Napolitano And the ONE? He hasn't been named to the position, yet ~ it's still between him and, you got it, another Clintonite. Guess she won, after all...
I can't make your meaning out. Can you clarify what it is about those quotes that impugns Daschle's integrity? I can see a shift in position, but nothing to suggest he has no integrity. Unless you are suggesting that anyone who has changed their position on the iraq war is without integrity?
"We do know" and, "We know" and, "We know" are not opinions or policy positions subject to being swayed by persuasive argument; they are solid statements attesting to the veracity of information . . . Information/intelligence/evidence does not vanish merely because someone has a "shift in position" . . . A fact is a fact and later conclusions drawn from different facts doesn't alter (or erase) the original evidence. Even if Daschle felt the information upon which he concluded "we know" in January was questionable in March, that wouldn't make the January evidence disappear! Going from "We do know" and, "We know" and, "We know" to “We have yet to see any evidence" is inexplicable except for Daschle being a dishonest, partisan, sell-out-America-for-temporary-political-advantage traitor. Besides that I'm sure he's a nice guy. No, plenty of stand-up officials have undergone a "shift in position" and articulated that shift in a principled manner. Daschle, being without principles or integrity, is incapable of doing that. Daschle would have displayed integrity if he said, "I know I said 'we know' Hussein had WMD's back in January; different intelligence has come to light and I can no longer state with the certainty required to put US soldiers at risk that Iraq poses a WMD threat." That he said "we have yet to see any evidence" is evidence only of the spineless weasel he is. OT note: there's a rebuttal from me to your comments in the "2nd Amendment threatened" thread that remains unaddressed . . . :toetap05:
his former chief of staff went into the RIAA in a top managerial position immediately after daschle did the RIAA some favors in the way of manipulating filesharing legislation. after he retires he can look forward to nice careers in the energy sector, the military contractor sector, or the media sector, as many people close to him have.
