|
Barack Obama got a global standing ovation long before he was elected president. But in a fickle and fast-moving world, the overseas reviews are already turning mixed.
A deepening global recession, new hostilities in the Middle East, complications in closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan – an impatient world has a stake in all of them and is asking how much change Obama can deliver.
“The idealism has diminished,” said Samuel Solvit, who heads an Obama support network in France. “Everyone was dreaming a little. Now people are more realistic.”
Said Reginald Dale, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, “People everywhere simply expect too much, practically ensuring Obama will disappoint.”
“The United States can’t solve all the world’s problems,” he said in an interview. “It doesn’t have enough money or military power. And the president is constrained by Congress and the constitution. The founding fathers wanted to stop someone from being like a monarch.”
Looks like the row to hoe is even more difficult than anticipated. And a monarch? Even with the Constitution under siege, let’s hope not.
You’re actually surprised that his supporters are now trying to lower expectations? That’s standard operating procedure after an election, regardless of party.
Obama is nothing more than the same old same old puppet. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
Obviously the sheeple have been fooled into the whole “Change” thing so there wouldn’t be another revolution.
Did we have a choice? Not in this two party kleptocracy.
Come on. The President (no matter who) can’t actually address the economic situation. That power & authority lies exclusively with the legislative branch. Neither Bush nor Obama knew/know what to ask for…
A little immature. He still isn’t sworn in yet.
The constitution is outmoded anyway…the only people I know who adore it are the rightwing gun nuts and the rightwing Rush-nuts. That old paper is being used for the wrong reasons, so let’s revise it, or at least stop worshipping it. Obama needs some room to act if he’s to repair the astonishing amount of damage the Chimp did to this country and this world.
New start in two days! Get behind Obama or get out of the country!
My favorite line:
“And the president is constrained by Congress and the constitution.”
Yeah, they make it sound almost like not having rule by one person is a bad thing. I wonder if the Constitution will constrain Obama like it constrained Bush.
@Mr Thomas. Our country is the Constitution. It is not one man, it will be around long after Obama’s failures. If YOU don’t like it, You get out of the country.
#6 Rev
>>I wonder if the Constitution will constrain Obama like it constrained Bush.
No, he’ll just declare it a living document then kill it.
“Looks like the row to hoe is even more difficult than anticipated” /// Obama’s row to hoe is the American Economy. He fixes that and the entire world will marvel. Looks like the turn around could only come at the end of his first term so his re-election looks doubtful.
A great man screwed over by a lesser retard. Sad.
Re the Constitution, I am a lib an d I love it for the Bill of Rights. Before you trash it, you have to follow it.
Bobbo,
A lib for the Bill of Rights…I presume that means you support the 2nd Amendment? And don’t give me that Militia crap….
As the recession continues to wreak havoc on the U.S. economy and inauguration celebrations ramp up, a lot of people are asking: “How much will this shindig cost?”
The short answer? More than $150 million — and yep, that’s the most expensive ever. (By comparison, George W. Bush’s 2005 inauguration cost $42.3 million. Bill Clinton managed with $33 million in 1993.)
From Yahoo News (it won’t be here for long).
#10–FP40==heh, heh. You nailed me. Of course I UNDERSTAND the Constitution as relevant only because it must be a “living document.” It cannot be applied/be relevant otherwise. During the framing of the Constitution there was no organized police force. There were no automatic weapons that could shoot thru concrete walls. There were no concrete walls.
So–a right to bear arms sufficient for the purpose being addressed–ie, still “legal” but with much less available than we have now. The Constitution is being “interpreted” just as much one way as the other–just wrongly in this case.
The fact that Contempt for the Truth has already posted against this key understanding of the Constitution only bolsters my argument.
I’ve said this many times before. The one thing the world love to see more than a celebrity rise to power, is seeing that same celebrity fall.
12, to this day it amazes me how the liberals will continually shout how important the constitution is when it comes to the first amendment but will completely ignore importance of the second.
#14–Bob==I challenge you to find a single quote to that effect. Disagreement as to what “original intent” means 250 years later is not a discussion about the importance of the concept.
In fact, people rarely argue about things that are not important===dontcha think????
I love the way rightwingnuts can never stick with the substance of an issue and can only win an argument by misstating it.
Nice non-answers booboo. Worthy of a Chicago pol.
#16–Paddy==no, I directly answered Bob’s point. You crack me up. Why don’t you go tell people how to spell moran?
#14, Bob,
And it completely amazes me how the conservatives will scream how important the Second Amendment is but the First Amendment is in the way of Law, Order, and our security.
There is even a parallel thread at this moment where some right wing nuts suggest that the press caused American troops to die. See post #7, #19, #27, …
#16, Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath, Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop, Pretend Constitutional Scholar, Fake California Labor Law Expert, Pseudo Military Historian, and Real Leading Troll Extraordinare,
Nice non-answers booboo. Worthy of a Chicago pol.
OOOHHhh, WOW !!! Cow-Paddy trying to say someone didn’t answer. That is too much.
Bobbo answered quite well.
Why don’t YOU tell us where in the Constitution where it states that Congress can’t regulates CEO’s wages. Then you can tell us which law in California says that a union member can’t fired for being drunk (or high) on the job. Then you can tell us which Pew Research Center Report says the media is biased.
After you start backing up what you write then maybe you can complain when others don’t.
#17, bobbo,
I thought that was a well reasoned and thoughtful answer. I don’t agree 100% but I do see your point.
The fact that Bush’s 2nd inauguration cost more than $12 pisses me off. Why have that damn thing at all? This one on Tuesday is a little bigger, dontcha think?
Is Obama completely different than anything previous? No, of course not. But he does represent the pendulum swinging to a more mainstream position, back from the train wreck and special-interest focus of the Bush administration. And it’s a huge departure from the lies Bush told, the “rhetoric” he himself said got out of control. That’s real change.
Great presidents do amazing things in the toughest of times. Bush did amazing things, but not in a good way. Obama’s story is yet to be written.
#20–Well, thank you Fusion. I’m watching Judge Bork on Book TV right now talking about Constitutional Interpretation. He looks like death on a stick but still a very erudite jurist.
From time to time you strike me as taking too much offense at mere disagreement. Words and ideas are to be considered, modified, accepted, rejected. Even ideas we reject can teach us something about those ideas we keep.
For myself, I find greater joy and learning in being confronted by an idea I disagree with. I don’t mind disagreement, I search it out.
Being stuck in the mud does make progress in any direction a challenge.
#12 bobbo
>>Constitution as relevant only because it must be a “living document.”
The Constitution is not a living document like you claim. If every generation is allowed to change it to meet their taste then soon it will be nothing more than a menu.
#23–contempt==its all definitional.
How can the “original intent” of the Right to Privacy in a society that had no electricity and your nearest neighbor lived 3 miles away be applied to TODAY?
I say that the original goals being sought need to be preserved.
Answer me this: The plain original meaning of the right to bear arms was the right to bear Muzzle Loading Muskets. It was only the living document concept that allowed the arms to be upgraded right along with the increasing technology that became “standard.”
And so it is with everything else in the constitution. Almost without exception, if a person agrees with a ruling, it is said to be consistent with the original intent of our founding fathers, but disagreement is labeled “judicial legislation” or a rewriting of the constitution, or a finding of new rights, or treating it as “a living document.”
All definitional.
#24 bobbo
The right to bear arms express purpose is to make it possible for citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
If someone uses arms of any caliber to commit a crime then the justice system is charged with applying punishment. It’s not the fault of the Constitution or Bill of Rights if the courts fail in their duty.
II – Right to keep and bear arms:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
#26 – Bobbo
That’s why I keep and bear arms. Thank you, founding fathers!
#26 bobbo
There is strength in numbers. Citizens will do well to form into a militia if they want to have a chance against government soldiers sent to take, let us say their property.
Mustard–whats your make and model musket?
#11 – Mr. Ray
>>As the recession continues to wreak havoc on
>>the U.S. economy
The brunt of the cost for the inauguration is borne by the Presidential Inauguration Committee (PIC), which is funded by private donations. It’s not like the money is being spent on the inauguration instead of bailing out auto makers or banks or sending $600 checks to people. It’s money freely given. And the PIC does not “accept contributions from corporations, political action committees (PACs), current federally registered lobbyists, non-U.S. citizens and registered foreign agents.” It’s all money from red-blooded American individuals. And no donations over $50,000 are accepted from individuals.
According to thehill.com, “Much of the money is going to be used to open up areas on the National Mall that have not been available to the public in past inaugurations said Linda Douglass, a spokesperson for the committee.
“We’re talking about putting JumboTron TV screens around with sound systems so that as many people as possible can witness the inauguration right here in the nation’s capital,” Douglass said.
“It’s an event that will hopefully unite the country and move beyond partisan rancor that you’ve seen following elections in the past.”
Though starting with a small staff, Douglass said she expects to see a large number of people come forward to volunteer the help the committee prepare for the inauguration.
“We certainly do expect to get an outpouring of offers to volunteer and we’re hoping to find as many ways as possible to use all of them,” said Douglass.“.
It’s all good.