And Bush coulda been great if he didn’t inherit a recession and terrorist sleeper cells from Clinton/Gore.

Riiiiight. ROFL

I think the stimulus package is not enough and misdirected and will fail and come to be seen as failed by the 2010 elections. I think the economy will be in bad shpae in 2012 and Obama will be a one term President unless we can get Palin to get nominated.

Sad, Obama could have been great if he didn’t have BushtheRetards mess to clean up.

But a hypocrite? No, not yet.

We strive to put the best of us into such lofty positions. If these people were the very, very best for the jobs I would expect a non-hypocritical man to stand in front of the nation and tell us why. That is change–It does have meaning.
There are plenty of other equally qualified individuals who have not broken Laws from which to choose. But their reaction was typical knee-jerk circle the wagons and protect the politico.

He made us expect more, and if he does not like the chatter he should not have raised the expectations.

It’s the same phenomenon as with the Bush apologists. No matter what the action, they’ll make excuses…

I just don’t know how you can call him anything but a hypocrite. /// Well, I think there has to be more an element of self-dealing or harm to other people before “acting inconsistently” arises to that moral judgment. Perhaps its realism? Perhaps we would all choose the good surgeon over the honest one but be hypocrites ourselves for not being honest about it?

You listen to Hannity? I can’t stand him. He rarely puts forth fact which makes it hard to use his statements as a foundation for any conclusions.
It has to be said though that a fact is a fact no matter the source. Mussolini once said that part of governments responsibilities was to get the trains to run on time. I agree with that statement even though the man was a repugnant piece of filth.

What makes the 1 appointment soo hypocritical is that is treasury secretary and the IRS is run by his Dept. Not to mention the multi-TRILLION dollar bailout.

I just don’t know how you can call him anything but a hypocrite.

But yes indeed, it is near impossible to find an honest man in Washington DC. What is Obama supposed to do??? There is an old expression for this that covers a lot: “Don’t make perfection the enemy of the good.”

If you needed brain surgery, who would you use:

A– Best Surgeon in the World. Miraculous technique, all good recoveries, but he cheats on his taxes.

B–Scrupulously Honest in all things. Takes the healthiest of low risk cases and still kills 50% of them.

I’d say our economy/healthcare needs expert surgery.

How about the second and more important part of my post?
You know the part that proves the point.

Now, do you really want to charge Obama with hypocrisy if he doesn’t ride a bike to the next meeting in Congress? Or can you properly place h is statment into an appropriate context?

I have, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, zero interest in owning the DU website.

A hypocrite is someone who expounds something as wrong, incorrect, and/or inappropriate, then does it himself.

He expounded the virtues of, among other things, keeping your thermostat at or under 72 degrees and then, less than 30 days into his Presidency, cranks up the oval office thermostat.
If I did the same thing I would be a hypocrite to.
If that was the extent of his hypocrisy I could care less.
unfortunately it continues. He puts in nomination 2 people who are tax dodgers. I think it is quite possible that he did not know at the time, but when it is discovered does he ask them to step down, affirming his call for change, heck no. In true bush fashion he offers these criminals his full support–and 1 of them runs the treasury dept., you know the one that runs the IRS and the multi-trillion dollar bailout.

I would go on but I do not think anyone here can hear.

Just what in your mind makes Obama a hypocrite?

I’ll wait until you get back from the water cooler boasting how you just owned the DU website.

Yuk, yuk.

I wish I had the time you two have to post, but alas I have to make a living.

#115
I still do not understand your premise that ones conclusions must be based on others opinions. there is a difference between fact and opinion. So called experts have been consistently wrong for years, but I do read them because they divine facts I find useful in formulating my opinion. I also find, even though I extract facts from the writings, there opinions or conclusions to be specious. If I really looked I probably could find commentators who agree with my conclusions and post links. I just do not think it’s important that a pundit agrees or disagrees with me.

Hate is not the point.
What was so disastrous about Mr. Carter to me was his unrealized potential.
He was and is a very decent and moral man with good character and demeanor. Unfortunately his naivete in implementing his policies was quite clear.
Seeking peace while, unintentionally, appearing weak is not a good strategy.
His search for human rights was laudable(and may I say refreshing to see coming from a President of the USA). But in Iran It should have been done judiciously not instantaneously. The vacuum created by this miscalculation gave license to the fanatics who took advantage and took charge. These same fanatics stand on the verge of having a nuclear weapon, not something anyone wants to see. The other fanatics they fund destabilize the entire region.

The only reason the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan was because Carter appeared weak and impotent. They paid a heavy price over the YEARS but again that area was more militarized and the fanatics took control there as well.(Funded and armed by our efforts to expell the Soviets and their allies.)

#116
Since by his own dis action Mr. Carter created the situation in Iran it matters little about the October surprise. If you wish to talk about Reagan I think we might be in agreement on how awful he was.

I’ll leave the petty insults to you guys.

One last point about Carter and the hostages that you might have learned if you had bothered to click the link. Here’s part of a paragraph from the article. Close your eyes now. You don’t want to risk learning something new.

But then came the Iran/Contra October Surprise, when the Reagan/Bush campaign allegedly promised the oil-rich mullahs of Iran that they’d sell them missiles and other weapons if only they’d keep our hostages until after the 1980 Carter/Reagan presidential election campaign was over. The result was that Carter, who had been leading in the polls over Reagan/Bush, steadily dropped in popularity as the hostage crisis dragged out, and lost the election. The hostages were released the very minute that Reagan put his hand on the Bible to take his oath of office. The hostages freed, the Reagan/Bush administration quickly began illegally delivering missiles to Iran.

And yes, I did read your post. If you read my comments again, I was asking you to back up your opinion. But, you think for yourself, so why let pesky facts get in the way of that?

Your politics are irrelevant. It is the substance of your statement.

One thing I truly dislike is a bald condemnation on nothing other than personal prejudices. A statement such as “I hate lepers” might sound innocuous enough. But it is still wrong. Did the whole world of lepers harm you in some way?

When you look a little deeper, that hate is really an expression of your own prejudices. You are afraid you might catch the disease. You don’t like their disfigurement. You have heard nasty stories of them from the bible.

The same with Jimmy Carter. You claim he was a ineffective President. Many historians would disagree. He could have involved us in a war that would have had casualties in the billions. Or, he could have staved off the chicken hawks and sought peace.

Carter could have deregulated the Nuclear Power industry a little more. Then we could have had a few more Three Mile Islands. He could have halted efforts by the EPA to clean up Love Canal or auto emissions.

Carter could have ignored the situation in the Middle East and seen casualties continue to mount. Instead, he brought together two very nationalistic leaders and got a peace agreement that cut the USSR out of the pie. You do realize that the loss of Soviet support to Egypt also took a serious toll on the influence that led to their invasion and defeat in Afghanistan just the next year.

Carter could have just ignored the price increase in crude oil and continued to fly around the country. Instead, he turned down the thermostat in the White House and wore sweaters. He encouraged Congress to implement auto fuel standards.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, there was little America could do anyway. We had no bases there or even within close range. The CIA supplied the resistance with weapons and technology, the same as the Soviets had done in Vietnam.

The Hostage incident consumed his Presidency. There was no course left for him other than to negotiate. These were American civilians being held by a mob. There was no effective government in Iran at that time. If he attempted to retrieve the hostages by force they would have been killed outright. Any alternative would almost certainly have resulted in the death of not only the hostages, but many other people as well.

So yes, you are allowed to say you dislike Carter, But unless you can back up your statement, it is just trolling, and we have enough regulars on this blog.

I AM A DEMOCRAT. R. Reagan, in many aspects, was worse than J. Carter. Please get the liberal/ conservative garbage out of your head!!!

As far as reading goes, you did cut and paste my second post into yours and then completely ignored the reference to examples in it. One would think the one did not read the whole thing.