In evaluating anything the Obama administration, ask yourself this one question:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

On health care or Afghanistan or any other issues, look at what the Obama administration has done on a particular issue and ask yourself, "Would I be equally in favor of this if John McCain had done it?"

If the answer is "no," then you have to honestly give the Obama administration poor marks on that issue.

Otherwise, you're placing party over principle.

[ClassWarrior]

1. That's an excellent standard.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

K&R

NGU.

[shraby]

2. One problem: John McCain wouldn't have done anything on the

health problem. His solution to all foreign problems is bombs, bombs and more bombs. It's not a matter of party over principle..the Republican's only principle is to break the bank and therefore break the government.

[young but wise]

4. +1

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. That's not the point

If John McCain had passed HCR exactly as the Obama administration did, everyone would have been whining about how it is basically Mitt Romney's plan on steroids. Which it is.

[Orsino]

91. It's as good a point as that contained in the OP...

...which should suggest that there are many more questions we should be asking.

[ClassWarrior]

97. If so, then it deserves its own thread. And it doesn't deserve to be used as...

...a cheap tactic to derail a fellow DUer's good point.

NGU.

[Orsino]

117. I get quite enough of "all I know is..." in the MSM.

"Derailing"? How about "exploring," or "analyzing"?

[ClassWarrior]

122. "All I know is?..."

:shrug:

Huh?

NGU.

[krawhitham]

106. +1

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. And Obama's plan for Afghanistan is ....?

:shrug:

[vaberella]

37. Troop removal starting this summer. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. Why wait so long?

:shrug:

How many young Americans and Afghan civilians will get killed in the meantime?

[vaberella]

61. Have you not been paying attention to the news on it?

This was easily explained. He stated very clearly and this is as he was a candidate in the elections that he felt Afghanistan was the holding cell of Al Qaeda and we had left it crumbling. At the time he was right. However, when more information was released many of AQ's people had made it into Pakistan. Even though they are still heavily terrorizing people in Afghanistan. Obama's plan was not only to try to push out or eliminate AQ but also to try to facilitate economic development. It wasn't only troops sent in to Afghan, but community building officials.

He stated very clearly and this information was released during this past year and last year that Obama roughly gave McChrystal a period of time and a set amount of troops. McChrystal and Petraeus were demanding 60,000 troops (with discretion to ask for more) and stated this to be an unending war. Petraeus himself said that his children and grandchildren will be fighting in this war. Obama said no...however he was devoted to the fact that we had to do something in Afghanistan. That's actually what he campaigned on and for all intents and purposes he's tried to complete as many of his campaign promises as he could. He gives them 30,000 troops and two years to make a turn around.

If there is no turn around in that time he's removing troops. In actuality he's removed quite a bit a troops in key locations in Afghanistan because of the unsuccessful rate to quell the violence. Sadly I can't find the Richard Engel videos on this. There are a lot of things to be done. They don't take 3 months, 5 months....things can go on for years to get done. I don't like things done in a wishy-washy fashion and I'm one of the ones who felt that we should do some sort of nation building after what we did to these people. And nation building doesn't happen without troop protection of sorts especially when the enemy is still out there. I'm always surprised by people who want to remove our troops. What then do you want to do for the people as we remove our troops. Leave them there? I hardly doubt that's the humanitarian way to do things. Sadly people will die when there is a very prevalent enemy and we try to do something positive for these people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. It was our trying to overthrow the 1978 Marxist government by

stirring up the Afghan knuckledraggers that wrecked the country in the first place. This led said Marxist government to call in the Soviets.

Then it was OUR CIA that supported the Taliban to take over after the Soviets withdrew. Yes, our very own CIA. They thought the Taliban were the "best-disciplined."

The Left was trying to raise awareness of the Taliban from the beginning, but no one in government seemed to take any interest until 9/11, six years later. Then all of a sudden it was urgent to oust the Taliban.

Idiots that we were, we thought that having a Marxist government would be the worst possible outcome for Afghanistan. Yeah, the population would have had a secular education and women would have equal rights, judging from what happened in the neighboring Central Asian areas.

We ARE the problem in Afghanistan. As usual, we're meddling in another country for reasons of ideological blindness and errand-running for the corporations. It would probably be cheaper to get the hell out of there and pay some of the more liberal Islamic countries to run Peace Corps-style programs--or just give each individual Afghan US$1000 (with 28 million people, that's $28 billion, or a little over 100 days' worth of fighting) and let them work their own problems out.

[sad sally]

92. or come home wounded...

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2040942_2223883,00.html?nomore

[Dawgs]

8. I think you're missing the point.

:shrug:

[JTFrog]

3. LOL. n/t

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arkana]

9. Your problem with that is

that McCain would have done nothing to address health care costs, nothing to rein in the big banks, and nothing to stimulate the economy.

So if John McCain had come along and done those exact things, I'd still be in support of them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. I can easily see John McCain putting on a SHOW of

reforming health care or reining in the big banks without addressing the real problems, namely, private insurance in the case of health care or usury and shady financial products in the case of the banks.

All three of the things that you mention would have been considered moderate Republican initiatives thirty years ago.

Private insurance companies can still price gouge and make up lame excuses not to pay providers. Financial institutions can still charge exorbitant interest rates and the banksters were allowed to keep their bonuses--on taxpayer money.

[Dawgs]

13. Health care costs have been addressed? How?

The banks have been reined in? How?

And, the economy still sucks. Ask anyone that actually has a job. Of course, there is no need to ask the millions that still don't.

[barbiegeek]

15. Me too

[Autumn]

30. I'm sorry, how have the banks been reined in? Health care costs?

My insurance went up. I have a higher deductible, higher co pay and I still can't afford to use it as often as I need to. Nothing has addressed my health care costs, nothing. There is almost an extra 50 bucks a month coming out of our pension check as our taxes increased. The Stimulus, while a good thing was not large enough. As for the banks being reined in that's a joke. So if McCain had come along and done those exact things, I would still consider them to be half assed measures. Of course McCain would have made tax breaks for the rich permanent immediately, Obama waited two years to capitulate.

On the bright side Obama isn't a fucking nut like Republicans, God only knows how many more wars we would be in otherwise.

[ClassWarrior]

10. By the way, in many cases it isn't even "party over principle." In many cases it's...

...personality over principle.

NGU.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Autumn]

31. That's it in a nut shell.

:thumbsup: If Clinton was still President or if Hillary had won, and had done some of this, the wailing would be deafening.

[Gravel Democrat]

14. puntapié y recomendamos

[ProSense]

16. Yeah, given McCain's stellar performance during the DADT and DREAM Act debates.

His votes on the Lilly Ledbetter, CHIP, the stimulus bill, confirmations of Kagan and Sotomayor, health care reform (and its repeal), Wall Street reform, START treaty are shining examples of FAIL.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. I'm not talking about what he DID

I'm asking you to do a thought experiment.

Would you have approved of various pieces of legislation a McCain administration had passed them?

In some cases, the answer would be yes (the START treaty is undeniably a good thing, no matter who passes it), or somewhat (the Wall Street reform bill was too timid), and no (HCR is a variant of Mitt Romney's plan).

In other words, the substance of the legislation is more important to me than who is responsible for it. Principles, not personalities.

I didn't like anything Bush did, but that's because all his policies were bad.

I didn't like most of what Reagan did, but his fix for Social Security is working for the time being and just needs some tweaking (a higher limit for FICA assessments, a ban on borrowing from the trust fund) to remain solvent in perpetuity.

[ProSense]

18. McCain would have been a disaster as President.

The man is a civil rights nightmare. The problem is too many people think of McCain as moderate, he's a conservative war monger and has a record to prove it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. As I said, ProSense. "thought experiment"

I agree that he would have been a disaster. He is the reason that I voted for Obama. You don't have to convince me that he would have been a disaster.

But you are missing the point of my thought experiment.

[ProSense]

20. "I agree that he would have been a disaster. "

So what's the point of the "thought experiment"?

Is it that Obama by comparison is a disaster too?

[ClassWarrior]

25. "So what's the point of the 'thought experiment?'"

It's that some of Obama's policies are disasters by comparison.

Is that so difficult to grasp?

NGU.

[ProSense]

26. "It's that some of Obama's policies are disasters by comparison."

Got examples of policies McCain would have supported that Obama doesn't?

Say anything isn't evidence.

[ClassWarrior]

27. It's amazing how some people just keep typing, confusing a discussion when it's all really...

...quite clear.

NGU.

[mochajava666]

126. It was the "thought" part of the experiment that threw you off

Why you don't understand the OP says a lot about you.

[DrToast]

34. Here's your thought experiment...

Would you favor the MA health care plan if it wasn't Mitt Romney who signed it?

Because I find it strange that the only objection you mention to the MA plan is that it was signed by Mitt Romney, as if that alone is a justification for opposing it. You don't mention anything wrong with it, just that it was signed by Mitt Romney.

It seems you failed your own thought experiment.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. No, I would NOT favor the Massachusetts health plan even if Ted Kennedy had designed it

I would have thought, "A plan designed by a well-meaning millionaire who has no idea of the issues that ordinary people face." (I feel the same way about No Child Left Behind, even though Ted Kennedy was one of the authors. I go by policies, not personalities.)

I have said plenty about what is wrong with this version of HCR. Look at my posts on Armstead's thread.

[ClassWarrior]

40. Nor would I have favored Romneycare, even if Ted Kennedy had designed it.

The public option seemed to me like a fair enough compromise between the vast majority of the American people who support Medicare for all, and the handful of money-grubbers and their apologists who want cut-throat health care.

NGU.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

54. Do you really not understand the point of the OP?

:shrug:

Honestly... Seems pretty clear.

NGU.

[Jakes Progress]

59. Understands it. Can't argue it.

So we get this diversion from a serious discussion.

[Jakes Progress]

58. Hey. Great dodge. When you can't argue the subject

you can just change the topic.

Where did the OP say that he thought McCain had a stellar performance? What does your post have to do with the OP? Why do you do this?

[BklnDem75]

21. In order to do that...

We have to pretend we don't know McCain's stance on both of these issues. Since we all know he was in favor of more wars, I'd give him high marks for giving a pullout date, which he and his party are strongly against. Considering he has no solution to health care, I'd be more than amazed he attempted to do something about it. With all the solutions Repukes offered in the last 2 years, I'd consider that a huge accomplishment.

Would you support Bush if he did everything Clinton did?

[paulk]

22. it's not "party" over principle

it's "person".

just sayin'....

[JoePhilly]

23. I can look at this 2 ways ....

The first way to think about it .... given my view of McCain, if he did ANYTHING that Obama has done, or heck, even EVERYTHING Obama has done, I would be THRILLED with him because my belief up front would be that his intent was to keep 150k troops in IRAQ forever, appoint 2 right wing nut jobs to the supreme court, do NOTHING about the recession, nothing about health care, nothing about financial reform, and then probably invade Iran. So, with that expectation, if he did everything just as Obama has done, I'd be thrilled.

The second way to think about it ... for this to work, I have to be able to imagine McCain doing any of the things Obama has done. As I point out above, almost everything Obama has done is not what McCain would have done.

But, I can think of 2 examples.

1) McCain would have increased troops in Afghanistan, he started to say so right after Obama said it during the General Election. I would have agreed with him.

2) I think McCain might have been willing to bail out the auto companies. I would have supported that.

Past that, McCain has made his positions pretty clear with his votes.

[Kweli4Real]

29. Those are my thoughts ...

But I would add ...

If McCain had done what PRESIDENT Obama has done, given the circumstance that PRESIDENT was in, I would be equally as thrilled.

The problem with "thought experiments" is you must assume a vaccuum.

[JoePhilly]

42. Very true ... its an "all else being equal" discussion ...

But how does that work here?

What is the Congressional make up under hypothetical President McCain?

Who are his top advisers?

Even if we had President McCain making any decision that Obama has also made, we'd be debating why it happened the way it did.

I can imagine McCain fighting for a PERMANENT tax cut for the rich, but settling for a TEMPORARY extension. Same outcome, but the intent going in, and the intent going forward, is not the same (as you say, no vacuum).

[Hutzpa]

24. We probably would have been fighting another war - - IRAN

and with any other country that look at us the wrong way.

[zalinda]

28. I wouldn't discount it with Obama either. n/t

[BklnDem75]

33. That doesn't say much...

since you're basing that off of nothing he's said or done to this point.

[vaberella]

36. When has Obama ever suggested or advocated a war with Iran?!

He's even avoiding anything to do with Egypt---while many people want us to send our "people" on the "ground" there. So I'd like to know what you're suggesting. While McCain was singing about bombing a nuclear bomb holding nation---Obama was reprimanding it and you're implying he'd go to war?! Where is your proof for this sort of suggestion? The man is already cleaning out Iraq...the last of our troops is out this August and he starts taking troops out in Afghanistan this summer...but you're saying that Obama might go to war with Iran?! I need something that supports this view.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. No, but he and Hillary Clinton both seem to think of Iran as a "problem"

Thank goodness for the democracy movements in Egypt, Tunisia, and Jordan.

That's taking the focus off Iran.

*I don't like the Iranian government, but if the U.S. has them surrounded with military forces on all sides (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and the Persian Gulf), isn't the U.S. being the belligerent one here?

[JoePhilly]

43. Iran is a problem.

To see it as other would be naive. The difference is how the administration deals with that problem.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. A problem for whom?

Not the U.S. (I'm convinced that their nuke program is strictly defensive, given that they're surrounded on all sides by U.S. military forces), and Israel has proved many times that it can take care of itself.

[JoePhilly]

46. Which explains why they were developing a nuke program before, we "surrounded" them.

The current Iranian leaders are dangerous to the entire region.

And whether Israel can "take care of itself" is somewhat irrelevant. After all, during WWII, England and the rest of Europe should have been able to defend itself.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. And they have threatened whom exactly?

Bush named them with Iraq and North Korea as "the axis of evil." Then he invaded Iraq. That would make any country nervous.

They're no angels on the human rights front, but believe it or not, they're better on women's rights than Afghanistan and are more democratic than Pakistan.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. We don't KNOW that they were trying to build bombs before the Iraq War

Many countries have peaceful nuclear programs, including Japan.

Is Japan trying to build a nuclear arsenal?

Don't believe every official government pronouncement you hear.

They have lied about more foreign policy matters than they've told the truth about.

I've seen and read and experienced too much to automatically hate or fear any country the government tells me to hate or fear.

When I was a kid, we were told to hate and fear "Red China," which was going to annihilate us. Thirty years later, when I met some actual Chinese visiting scholars, they told me that their government had said the same things about the U.S.

Hawks also endlessly repeated the assertion that Khrushchev had said of the U.S., "We will bury you." This sounded like he planned to launch a nuke attack any day, but in fact, "We will bury you" is an old Russian expression that means, "We will outlast you." This fact was not revealed until the 1980s, when our government was trying to encourage Gorbachev's reforms.

So yeah, I'm skeptical. I remember too much.

[stevenleser]

101. First of all, no one needs to guess about any of these things...

Iran has the IAEA present at its facilities and they regularly report on Iran's progress.

Japan is considered by many as a defacto nuclear state as they have everything they need to construct a bomb within a year should they choose to do so.

Countries that were skeptical (to say the least) of our contentions regarding Iraq's weapons programs are sounding the alarm regarding Iran, countries like France and Germany.

The UN weapons inspectors were clear about Iraq prior to the Iraq war in stating that there were no banned weapons.

[vaberella]

62. And so does most of the world. Did you see what the Government did to it's people?!

You don't think Iran is a problem?! However, Obama has made no move to go into the nation and he won't go in. This is a nation with a nuclear weapon. This is not Iraq. Iraq never had WMD's. Iran does and they actively talk about it. The US never goes to war with a nation with nuclear weapons. Let's look at this logically.

Hardly. A Nuclear weapon will cannot be stopped by mere military forces. And it can be started by a push of a button from a remote location. You're not looking at the full picture.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. Yes, it's doing what Egypt is doing to its people

But said to say, a lot of nations repress their people, including Uzbekistan, which is MUCH more brutal than Iran, and yet, they're our "ally."

And what motivation would Iran have to launch a first strike?

They know they'd face massive retaliation. I see no indication that they're suicidal.

But surrounded by the U.S. on all side (and included in Bush's "axis of evil," and we have NO IDEA what our CIA might have been up to in recent years), they probably see nukes as a great defensive weapon.

We just have to sit tight and wait for a change of generations. The young people are tired of living in a straitjacket, and they like Western things. But the Iranians are also an ancient and proud people who fought Alexander the Great (yes, they've been on the same land for thousands of years). If the U.S. attacked them, they'd fight back. They're a real nation, not a patched-together relic of colonialism like Iraq.

Oh, and the current situation in Iran is another result of CIA meddling. They had a democratically elected government after World War II until that government pissed off the oil companies. The CIA financed a coup by the Shah, who killed off or exiled all the moderate opposition until only the Islamic fundamentalists were left.

Heckuva job, CIA.

[stevenleser]

102. All of us know the history. n/t

[boppers]

32. McCain and Obama aren't parties. eom

[vaberella]

35. With McCain..he'd not done healthcare. But we'd have a draft and be back in Vietnam now.

And a whole mess of other wars. this is a shit comparison.

[Drunken Irishman]

50. And an economy wrecked by the lack of any stimulus...

A stock market in the tank due to no action and the largest, most prestigious automaker in America collapsing due to indifference.

[ClassWarrior]

64. Are you purposely refusing to understand what the OP is saying?

I mean, it's so obvious, it just needs to be asked. Are you purposely trying to deceive people into thinking that you don't understand the OP?

NGU.

[vaberella]

79. Dude..her statement is a strawman. I can't understand this way of thinking. n/t

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Drunken Irishman]

49. In evaluating anything the Obama administration has done - ask yourself this one question:

Do you think Pres. McCain would do the exact same thing?

If the answer is "no," then you can concede Pres. Obama's leadership is dramatically different than anything we've seen the last eight years - maybe even 30 or 40.

[Honeycombe8]

51. Easy. The answer is yes. But more to the point...McCain would NOT have done those things. nt

[Armstead]

52. "President McCain today appointed the CEO of GE to chair Jobs Panel"

Yeah, I can just see how DU would have reacted to that one.

[ProSense]

55. "President McCain today appointed David Koch of Koch Industries to chair Jobs Panel"

[ClassWarrior]

56. You wish.

NGU.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

71. There are those who are focused on people and those who are

focused on getting a job done and don't care who does it.

The idealists are always looking for that person who will save them, rather than the overall effort - so they lionize whoever is going to save them. Obama first, they abandoned him, now it's Warren or even Julian and Wikileaks. Of course they will fail too.

Whereas a former CEO may know something about creating jobs, no?

Assuming a CEO is an evil person just because of that is as bigoted as anything else.

[mochajava666]

125. yea., I think facsism is great as long as Obama is the dictator

You always have such insightful and well thought out points. It's always my joy to read your explanations as to why Obama never makes a bad decision and it's always his critics that are fools.

You are a gem to have on a discussion board.

[Bonobo]

60. You've cut right to it and it is hard for some people to read in such stark terms.

It is unprincipled to support a position from a Dem but condem the same position from a Repub.

It must sting a little to read.

[creon]

63. Congress

I view Obama much more favorably than I view Congress.

It was the 111th Congress that did not pass effective legislation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. And Obama who signed it

He had the power to send it back and ask for things like a public option or usury laws or denial of bonuses to bankers before signing these bills, and he didn't do it.

[ProSense]

69. "He had the power to send it back and ask for things like a public option"

Are you serious?

The health care bill barely passed Congress via reconciliation.

You actually think the President was going to jeopardize the bill by vetoing it?

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

82. That's right, you've said President Obama has no power or intestinal fortitude...

...to do the tough things that need doing.

NGU.

[treestar]

70. I live in the real world, where Republicans are the other major party

I have to put party over principle. Makes no sense to do otherwise, as it helps Republicans. Let's say my principle is that Republicans, with their principles, should never have power or have as little as possible.

I don't see where it helps to trash the Democrats, until they truly are the right wing major party.

We can be guided by principles, but in the real world, we have to let them be a general guide, not an all or nothing proposition. For instance, we should get out of Afghanistan, but stay there if the alternative is more wars. McCain and Palin would have us in Iran. Egypt would be another opportunity (unless they don't have enough oil).

[BobbyBoring]

72. It's hard to have a thought experiment

by equating something that could not happen with something that did in this case. Mc Cain would have done nothing on HCR, put more troops in Afghanistan, would have invaded Pakistan and Yemen, would not have continued the bail outs etc.

That said, I'm glad Obama is POTUS but I give him failing marks on about everything he's done~

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mkultra]

73. this is a false paradigm

because most of the judgment occurring is about what they think is GOING to happen, not what is happening or did happen. Such a thing is based on trust. When i view McCain through that lens, he always falls at Obama's feet.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

78. It has nothing to do with "what they think is GOING to happen."

Please read more carefully.

NGU.

[mkultra]

89. my post expands the discussion beyond the scope presented

The two specific cases shown regard HCR and Afghanistan. To answer those questions directly i will say that i seriously doubt that McCain would be interested in HCR but i certainly think he would have gone into Afghanistan.

If McCain would have taken on HCR, i would have been surprised and slightly happy. I'm happy with what we got and i wish we would have gotten more. Frankly , i think congress screwed it up and i think that most Americans who support HCR see it that way as reflected by the massacre in the last congressional elections despite high approval numbers for Obama.

The issue of Afghanistan would, however, been one of future judgment. I think If McCain went into Afghanistan, i think his intentions would be far more destructive and wrong than those which i think motivate Obama. So in this case, what is "going to occur" has great bearing on the matter, thus trust is a major issue.

[quaker bill]

80. I would probably be happier if McCain did it

If McCain were President, I would likely be impressed if anything remotely positive happened, even once. I kept looking for something GW Bush did that was even vaguely positive or productive, and after 8 insufferable years, I came up empty.

[OhioBlue]

81. Unfair comparison

McCain wouldn't have done what President Obama has done. To think that he would have is ridiculous. It is a totally false comparison. But to play along with your game, I'll answer you on health care. If McCain was Pres and had worked with a Democratically controlled House and Senate to pass the exact same legislation, I would feel exactly as I do now. It is a starting point that needs to be improved upon.

[Kaleva]

83. Is there anything wrong with placing party over principle?

I wish President Obama, who I voted for in 2008, would reverse his position and say he does not support a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. Senator McCain voted against the AWB and also voted against renewing the AWB when it was due to expire.

An example of where one can put party over principle.

[ClassWarrior]

84. Not when they coincide. But, as was noted upthread, it's more a case of...

...personality over principle, rather than party over principle. As you suggest, if it was the latter, it'd be a lot easier for the two to coincide.

NGU.

[Cali_Democrat]

85. This makes perfect sense.

Bad policies are bad policies whether they come from the GOP or Dems.

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Call me naive, but I trust President Obama a little more than John McCain or George Bush

I don't blindly trust him and I do disapprove of some things that he does. But Bush and McCain have given me far more reasons than President Obama to never give them the benefit of the doubt.

[ClassWarrior]

88. You're not naive, but you are missing the point.

NGU.

[Hippo_Tron]

94. No I don't think I am missing the point

The OP is arguing that I should be as critical of Obama for everything that has occurred under his watch that I was critical of under Bush's watch or I would be critical of if it were happening under McCain's watch.

I don't believe that is the case.

For example, I believe that Obama genuinely wants to close Guantanamo and the reason it hasn't been closed is that Congress is completely uncooperative and there's really not a whole lot Obama can do to change that. Whereas if it were Bush or McCain, I would be critical of the fact that they had not closed Guantanamo because I genuinely believe that they want to keep it open.

Like I said though, that doesn't apply to everything. I think we don't need to be in Afghanistan right now and Obama is wrong, just as Bush was wrong, for keeping us there.

[Skip Intro]

87. Of course we must apply standards equally. In my comparisons, I use bush*

[MasonJar]

90. Absolutely dead center!

[stevenleser]

93. Had McCain been elected and done what Obama has done I would view him favorably. n/t

[CakeGrrl]

95. So should people dislike DADT repeal if it had happened under McCain?

You're asking your question based on specific situations where you have already concluded that the President's position is no different than you think McCain's would have been. Have you considered the duality of what you're asking, such as the scenario in my subject line?

[ClassWarrior]

98. Actually, the OP is asking people to consider for themselves how different or same...

...their positions would have been. I wonder why so many people refuse to understand the point of a post asking them to think for themselves.

:shrug:

NGU.

[CakeGrrl]

107. Who says I refuse to understand it? I think the OP is using a false premise

It's not "think for themselves", it's "think like I do".

IMO, several of these types of posts are rooted in "I can't believe you're not as outraged as I am!" and they're flying juuuust under the radar of calling people mindless sheeple cheerleaders for not agreeing with them.

[ClassWarrior]

108. Wow, you sure read a lot into that short, very concise OP. Where does it say...

..."think like I do?" Could you please show examples?

And nobody said you refuse to understand it. I said many people do.

NGU.

[tnvoter]

96. I disagree with your point

... and I know the point you are making. The truth is, had a republican POTUS done what Obama did with the same resistance from the opposing party and heated political environment -- THEN YES, I WOULD APPLAUD HIM, too.

I know that's not what you want to hear. I got your point, and others on this thread got it, too. We don't misunderstand you. We just disagree with you.

[Jakes Progress]

99. How about the opposite?

Would you applaud and defend forgiving the bush/cheney war lies if mccain were president and did that?

Would you applaud and defend the extension and expansion of NCLB with the support of gingrich if maccain were president and did this?

Would you applaud the extension of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy (as well as gutting the estate tax) if mccain were president and did this?

Would you applaud the extension of the wars and the excuse for torture if mccain were president and did this?

Would you applaud and defend the use of homophobic religious leaders for public events if mccain were president and did this?

Would you applaud and defend making a deal with Pharma not to seek a public option for their silence if mccain were president and did this?

Your post is simplistic and does miss the point. Of course we applaud any progressive thing the president has done. Were mccain president you post would be a good question for republicans, but the post asks if you support the right wing efforts being pushed or condoned under this presidency. So, Yes. You do misunderstand the OP. The OP asks that you judge issues over party. Or is that what you disagree with?

[stevenleser]

100. No, his point is not simplistic. Yours is simplistic and the OPs is simplistic.

1. Obama did not "forgive" the Bush/Cheney war lies. He did what every President has done since this nation was founded and did not prosecute the President that came before him. There are reasons for that, but "forgiveness" is not among them. Its that straightforward. Trying to spin that to somehow make Obama a bad guy makes you non-credible.

2. NCLB is not that important of an issue to me.

3. If McCain continued the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in exchange for getting an arms reduction treaty through congress and DADT repeal, again, he would have had my support. Of course, that wouldnt have happened because as we all know, McCain fought DADT repeal tooth and nail.

4. Obama did not extend Iraq. I disagreed with Obama on Afghanistan and that is on the record. Obama does not torture. You have bought into lies in that regard.

5. I criticized Obama for the use of homophobic religious leaders for public events.

6. I would have applauded any President who significantly moved the bar forward on HealthCare.

[Jakes Progress]

105. How is being morally consistent simplistic?

1. Non-credible is using the excuse that everybody does it as a reason to forgive the bush lies. And if, as chief of the executive branch, you do not prosecute broken laws, you are forgiving those crimes. Obama has not even condemned or in any way expressed disgust with the lies and deceit that have broken the country and spread terrorism across the world. But then, if everybody does it, that makes it okay. Right?

2. Then you don't care if reagan's plan for education becomes the future of our children? Pathetic and sad. Being uninformed is no excuse.

3. I don't really believe that honest Democrats would have cheered mccain for extending the tax cuts for the wealthy. That action would have brought condemnation from this board. If mccain had used an arms treaty that was originally proposed by other republicans as an excuse for "strangling the government" so that the neocons could gut SS and medicare and a host of other programs for the people, it would have been seen as a sham. The republicans were looking for an excuse to pass the arms treaty. The DADT vote was not contingent on the vote to reward greed. (Your last sentence in number 3 is, again, evidence of not understanding the point of the OP.)

4. We are still in Iraq. Thank you for your support in condemning the president for his Afghanistan folly. This administration has continued torture as a methodology. You have bought into the lies in that regard.

5. Well, thanks for a bit of progressivism.

6. Again. If mccain had passed a bill requiring citizens to fork over hundreds of billions to private corporations for insurance and made no progress on drug costs, I don't think that he would have been cheered by most on DU. What this inept president managed to get was a bill several steps to the right of what eisenhower, nixon, and even reagan suggested. It is a source of huge windfall profits for corporate insurance. The small bits that could be called positive are things that were bargaining chips from the corporate world on their way to control of and profit from our health care.

All in all, though you call the OP simplistic, you seem to agree with it. You say you did judge the president by the same standards as you would have judged a republican doing the same thing. It's just that you see the republican victories as okay. But, continuing with the theme of inconsistency, you argue that you do indeed do exactly what the OP says to do while condemning the OP at the same time.

I think the message of the OP is well proven by your post.

[stevenleser]

109. You are not being morally consistent. You are spinning everything to make it appear that way. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

110. You trash the OP. Then you say you do exactly what the OP suggests you do.

From my view, you are spinning everything to make it appear your way.

[stevenleser]

116. Except that my explanations are completely straightforward without interpretation and yours are not

[ClassWarrior]

118. You mean like the parts where you say his posts are simplistic, morally inconsistent and...

...not straightforward or without interpretation?

You mean like that?

:eyes:

NGU.

[JuniperLea]

115. You assume these things were applauded

Not everyone who supports Obama applauds every single thing he's done.

[lynne]

103. TOTALLY 100% Accurate - and some aren't going to be able to admit it to themselves -

- I think you're going to make some people very unhappy. If they can be honest with themselves, that is!

[BklnDem75]

104. It seems you have your answer

Many who bothered to answer the question has said they would favor McCain's position if he did the same thing. Does that mean we're placing party over principle?

[ClassWarrior]

112. No, it suggests something much more dreadful than that.

NGU.

[BklnDem75]

113. Do tell

Honesty was asked for and given. What's dreadful about seeing the reality of our situation?

[ClassWarrior]

119. But that would be telling...

:rofl:

NGU.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

114. Yes... I've always been pragmatic...

I gave BushII kudos for several things, for example.

This hypothetical game only works for bashing Obama if you are a hard ass partisan. Quite frankly, I'm gobsmacked at how many hard ass partisans voted for him then went on to forget how they surely overlooked a lot of what he was saying! He wasn't just giving lip service to bi-partisanship and being president to all Americans.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[woo me with science]

121. +10000 nt

[demmiblue]

123. +1

[Mimosa]

124. If McCain cut energy assistance for the poor, would we support it?

More people than ever need energy assistance to keep their homes warm. Especially the elderly have benefited from this program. The Obama administration is proposing cutting it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/09/obama-poor-energy-cuts-kerry-letter_n_821061.html

[styersc]

127. If McCain bought Sasha and Malia shaved ice in Hawaii....

...I'd be a little creeped out.

If he walked Bo while the President and family were on an overseas trip. I'd think that was sort of neighborly.

If McCain got a busted lip challenging tight coverage in the key, under the hoop- I'd think that it was surprisingly cool.

Dancing with Michele at the Innauguration...again, sort of creepy.

[DaDeacon]

128. If McCain had done half of what obama has done ...

I would say he was the most Progressive Republican since Ike.

[GoCubsGo]

129. Yes, I would.

In fact, I dare say we MIGHT have gotten better deal with McCains, because it's quite possible HIS party, which was in the minority in both houses of Congress for the first two years, would likely not have obstructed everything he did. I am not thrilled with what our President has done, but I believe it's the best he could get under the circumstances. As much as I hate to quote Andrew Sullivan, he correctly said a few weeks ago (and I paraphrase), "The President has to work with the country we have, not the country we want."