> The man who promised to closed Guantanamo Bay... And didn't.
Yeah, I mean its not like Congress passed a law specifically prohibiting the actions the President proposed in order to close the detention facility at Guatanamo Bay. [1]
[1] They didn't pass a law, but several, on different occasions.
There is an important point in this: The American public (i.e. citizenry) must look itself in the face and question what it has begotten.
Our "leaders" really mostly follow. They follow votes. They follow money. Increasingly, the influence of money (and the votes, and redistricting into "safe" districts, that it can buy) appears to be superceding that of raw, individual votes.
But it is still the citizens who cast those votes.
It's not just "them." It is "us." (For U.S. citizens. And for non-citizens who have various forms of influence upon U.S. policy, directly or in response to it.)
In that sense, it might be argued we have very much gotten the government we deserve.
If we think we deserve better, it is up to us. Not them.
You mean they passed a law specifically blocking the actions the President took: he gave the executive order to close Guantanamo 2 days after the inauguration.
Sure, he could find a way to push it through, but given the Republicans' historical success at demanding the world from a Democrat with a mandate (e.g. cutting capital gains tax by a third in exchange for childrens' health care), I'm sure their asking price was high.
My point was not that Dems as a party were blameless, only that Obama could plausibly lie anywhere on the fault spectrum for this issue. You're correct to observe that the real fault lies with the political system that encourages the use of bargaining chips, but the people blaming Obama were the only ones saying otherwise.
I used CHIP as an example of congress opposing a mandate in order to win concessions. The CHIP issue almost certainly had roughly similar party lines, but given a few hours I'm sure I could dig up 10 examples of party X opposing party Y's mandate to extract concessions regardless of whether X==Y or X!=Y, if that would make you happy.
I don't think we got the person we elected in 2008 and 2012 ... what makes you think that Palin would be worse? Have you noticed that after all the "Tea Partyism" during the last election, the Republican party seems to have congealed back into its original form?
I really don't see how we elect change without a third party - yet I think the way elections are run (especially financially) virtually guarantees we'll never get that third party. The only possible solution is to pray for grid-lock.
Yes ... I really am THAT cynical. But I'm older than most of this crowd and my idealism is spent.
It's interesting to me that this is exactly the person that the Republicans didn't want to see elected in 2008 (In 2012 I think they wanted him to win, because Romney never had a chance).
That so many young people who idealistically embraced him can't stand him now doesn't mean he changed, just that they woke up to who he really was all along.
Seriously, no surprises here. If you believed the impossible promises he made on the 2008 campaign trail, I'm sorry, but you were warned.
(Incidentally I intend to pay a lot of attention to the negative reporting done on candidates I support in the future, because it represents a worst-case scenario if the pundits actually turn out to be right)
I agree completely ... and I never said I voted for him but rather that the "corporate we" elected him. On the other hand, I AM a bit surprised that so few of his 2008 promises were even attempted, and that more people didn't revolt over his lack of commitment in 2012. People may not have recognized the impossible promises, but they would have expected an attempt at enacting those policies.
As someone who voted for Obama twice (once for change and once against Romney) I will be voting from now on for anyone and everyone who would be new to DC. At this point that's the best hope for change that I can see.
> As someone who voted for Obama twice (once for change and once against Romney) I will be voting from now on for anyone and everyone who would be new to DC.
Actually, unfocussed churn in elected policymakers just means that the unelected powerbrokers -- who are very much not interested in change -- increase in power relative to the rotating classes of novice elected officials.
Especially given the limitations of our electoral system in providing choices and effective representation, educated voting on substance alone without effort outside of voting is insufficient to do much to produce desired change, but reducing the effort involved to just voting blindly for novelty will be even less effective.
It's a tough thing. If you vote for someone with no ties to Washington, you are "voting for someone with no experience." If you vote for someone entrenched in DC, you are "voting for a career politician." It's a lose/lose proposition haha
Obama came from Chicago politics. He was "new to DC" like John Carmack is "new to Occulus Rift". He might be working with a different crew now, but he's bringing a lot of "experience" to bear.
Yeah, I mean its not like Congress passed a law specifically prohibiting the actions the President proposed in order to close the detention facility at Guatanamo Bay. [1]
[1] They didn't pass a law, but several, on different occasions.