Xequecal wrote:
You know, if a Republican had been elected instead, what would he not have done that Obama has done? Because the bailout and stimulus were absolute givens, even a Republican would have passed them without hesitation. Hell, Bush signed most of the bailout legislation himself.
Exactly, we might not have been in quite as much debt, but otherwise we'd be headed in the same direction.
Monte wrote:
I know it's popular among conservatives to start blaming Obama for starting those wars, despite the fact that he wasn't even a Senator at the time, and that he opposed them.
I don't know how anyone could blame him for starting it, that makes no sense, but I can blame him for not ending it. He was an anti-war candidate. I don't see his social objectives as much different from what I see from everyone. I'm the least unhappy about the economic stuff, because I see that in both parties imo. The war is inexcusable. He could end it right now, Monty. Sure, it'd take some time to pack up and all that, but he could have ended gitmo and a wide variety of other bullshit very easily. He's done more of the same instead. Surging Afghan, which I never hear good news about. Even top generals admit that it will take way longer than the politicians and diplomats want. The Stars and Stripes, a military geared newspaper, never has an article that is upbeat about Afghanistan. He was the anti-war guy, Monty! He is the commander in chief of the military, many of the things you thought made Bush a war criminal are still happening under his supervision! There is no excuse. I'm not lowering my expectations because Obama is the new-guy.