• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

Thank you as well.



Now are you disapointed at some of his picks, Were you expecting at least some washington outsiders, not clinton retreads (I know slightly loaded).......



I mean what is different about his cabinet as far as where they came from compared to previous administrations?


Does it at least appear or can you see how it could appear to many that he is as of right now, "politics as usual"?

I see how people can attack him for "politics as usual". It's an easy, lazy attack. Unless we have a dictatorship, there will always be politicing. Let's say he nominated a bunch of college professors instead. How loud would the drumbeat be that he is appointing a bunch of people without experience. Isn't that the knock on Panetta?

No matter who any President puts in their cabinet, people will criticize. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

We'll see what Obama's policies will be. These people do serve at his pleasure. If he follows bad advice, the buck will stop with him.
 
I see how people can attack him for "politics as usual". It's an easy, lazy attack. Unless we have a dictatorship, there will always be politicing. Let's say he nominated a bunch of college professors instead. How loud would the drumbeat be that he is appointing a bunch of people without experience. Isn't that the knock on Panetta?


ho is it lazy? How is it easy? He made the promise, not I. He campaigned on change, and many bought it...

Panetta is an insider without experience, wholly different.


No matter who any President puts in their cabinet, people will criticize. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

We'll see what Obama's policies will be. These people do serve at his pleasure. If he follows bad advice, the buck will stop with him.



When will be the appropriate time to critisize him for his picks that seem not inline with his campaign promises?
 
ho is it lazy? How is it easy? He made the promise, not I. He campaigned on change, and many bought it...

Panetta is an insider without experience, wholly different.

I get that he's an insider. I think to an extent that it's good to have some people with White House experience. It helps him prevent mistakes made in previous administrations. He really doesn't have much room for error. Bush 41 was an insider with no intelligence experience. I can see the value of placing someone loyal to The Presidency in that position over someone who is loyal to a quasi-rogue agency.





When will be the appropriate time to critisize him for his picks that seem not inline with his campaign promises?

You can criticize now. It's all speculation though. Until his policies are enacted, it will be nothing more than speculation. You'll have plenty to criticize soon I am sure. You'll actually have ammunition once his policies take effect. Right now, there isn't much to back up the claims. Yes, the players are insiders, but will they conduct business as usual, or will they conduct business according to Obama's directive? We don't know. It's like betting on the Super Bowl. We just don't know until they play the game.
 
I'm sorry, this thread is about that? Nice attempt to derail. Not going to bother with it. Want to blather on and on about it go ahead, you're pretty simple to ignore when you're yammering on about pointless things.

Of course you missed the point, it's convenient to your perverse equivalency you're running here.

I merely provided a clear example of Obama lying to demonstrate that Obama was not exaggerating or abusing rhetorical license as Bush might be guilty of regarding citing intelligence reports.

Are you going to simultaneously complain that he didn't appoint someone with exerience, and THEN complain he appointed someone from Washington? This isn't using the same "washington players" that was previously the type used for the CIA, instead he went with a person with a more business and management background. I'm not saying its the right choice, but it is a different direction. And its not a "lie".

Panetta is a longtime Washington insider, exactly the sort of Washington player that Obama railed against when he promised change to avoid the same result you get when you continue using the same Washington players.

And Panetta is only one of several like Hillary, Rahm, Holder, and his other two recent picks at DoJ who were also Clinton appointees.

This is why I asked if those Democrats who voted for Obama's promise of "change" felt that they were lied to.

Did he indicated he'd utilize ALL new players? Did he indicated they'd only be new to politics, to democratic politics, or that they'd be new ones other than the republicans we've been seeing? Congrats, assuming, just like the left.

He was unequivocal. His message was clear. New players to play a new game to realize new outcomes.

Instead, we get Clinton retreads and as we're now seeing with his economic plans, the same old Democratic model of priming the pump to spur economic activity.

Same players, same game, same outcome.

Awwww how, CUTE! You made the same statement you're relying on, without a link backing it up, and without any context to it AT ALL, in really really big letters! Isn't that just special.

I didn't make that statement.

Obama made that statement.

You didn't catch that?

Doesn't really prove a damn thing except my point that you're taking a statement and assuming and interpreting it to your will and then stating he's "lieing". Thanks.

My goodness...

The guy ran on a platform of change. He consistently argued that he was bringing change. He argued that he'd use new players.

There's nothing to assume into his own campaign declarations and promises.

Now, excuse me while I continue to ignore your hyper partisan, hypocritical blather in exchange for reading useful, worth while posts.

Hyper-partisan?

What? Like Democrats aren't similiarly complaining about this?

Why are you ignoring the plain reading of Obama's own campaign declarations?
 
I get that he's an insider. I think to an extent that it's good to have some people with White House experience. It helps him prevent mistakes made in previous administrations. He really doesn't have much room for error. Bush 41 was an insider with no intelligence experience. I can see the value of placing someone loyal to The Presidency in that position over someone who is loyal to a quasi-rogue agency.







You can criticize now. It's all speculation though. Until his policies are enacted, it will be nothing more than speculation. You'll have plenty to criticize soon I am sure. You'll actually have ammunition once his policies take effect. Right now, there isn't much to back up the claims. Yes, the players are insiders, but will they conduct business as usual, or will they conduct business according to Obama's directive? We don't know. It's like betting on the Super Bowl. We just don't know until they play the game.




You are right, it's like betting on the superbowl and obama says he won't choose the Detroit lions to make it there cause they are losers, and forms a new team and picks all the players from wait for it....... The Detroit lions.....



The writing is on the wall and it is two stories high.
 
You are right, it's like betting on the superbowl and obama says he won't choose the Detroit lions to make it there cause they are losers, and forms a new team and picks all the players from wait for it....... The Detroit lions.....



The writing is on the wall and it is two stories high.

He better not hire Matt Millen!!!
 
I see how people can attack him for "politics as usual". It's an easy, lazy attack. Unless we have a dictatorship, there will always be politicing. Let's say he nominated a bunch of college professors instead. How loud would the drumbeat be that he is appointing a bunch of people without experience. Isn't that the knock on Panetta?

Now you're just grossly caricaturing those you're disagreeing with.

The argument is that Obama presented himself as a post-partisan candidate promising to change the way Washington works because Washington has been played the same way with the same players with the same results.

Why anyone would think he was saying anything other than that based on Obama's own campaign promises and declarations is beyond me and, imo, represents willful suspension of disbelief to do so.

Consequently, Obama is now reneging on the primary aspect of his campaign.

No matter who any President puts in their cabinet, people will criticize. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

The argument I have presented here doesn't have anything to do with the appropriateness of the selections. It has to do with a completely upheaval of Obama's primary characteristic as a candidate.

We'll see what Obama's policies will be. These people do serve at his pleasure. If he follows bad advice, the buck will stop with him.

There's no reason to wait and see on this question. He declared that he'd change the game by using new players. He's not.
 
I definitely thought he meant change from Washington politics.

I want to clarify this statement. I think what surprises me the most is the fact that Obama is picking so many people who worked in the Clinton Administration. While I fully remember how well the economy was doing back them, to me, all those people are Washington insiders. I thought he would even provide change from the Clinton Administration (although Clinton was better at working with Congress than Bush was (for example, he would seek Hatch's approval of any judicial nomination before nominating that person, which is why people like Ginsburg and Breyer had no problem getting through the Senate)).
 
Aps, just admitted that this change was not what was promised. And I find it disingenuous given my links of others to now monday morning quaterback and change what they said about this change to something that fits reality as opposed to what is reality.

I just updated my thoughts. ;)
 
I want to clarify this statement. I think what surprises me the most is the fact that Obama is picking so many people who worked in the Clinton Administration.

Those of us who are criticizing Obama for reversing his pledge to play the game differently with new people are not surprised. I mean, who else is really available except staffers and appointees from the Clinton administration who possess the needed skills to run the Executive Branch? Answer: they're it.

While I fully remember how well the economy was doing back them, to me, all those people are Washington insiders.

That's attributing a whole lot of credit to that administration that I and many other people smarter than me would find a little more than generous.

I thought he would even provide change from the Clinton Administration (although Clinton was better at working with Congress than Bush was (for example, he would seek Hatch's approval of any judicial nomination before nominating that person, which is why people like Ginsburg and Breyer had no problem getting through the Senate)).

Then you didn't listen closely enough to Obama's proposed policies.
 
I want to clarify this statement. I think what surprises me the most is the fact that Obama is picking so many people who worked in the Clinton Administration. While I fully remember how well the economy was doing back them, to me, all those people are Washington insiders. I thought he would even provide change from the Clinton Administration (although Clinton was better at working with Congress than Bush was (for example, he would seek Hatch's approval of any judicial nomination before nominating that person, which is why people like Ginsburg and Breyer had no problem getting through the Senate)).




Thank you, this does not however and I think you will agree change my point regarding how you thought Obama would be regarding washington insiders.


Did I also not have you stating something regarding him being different or change from Kerry as well or was that someone else?
 
Thank you, this does not however and I think you will agree change my point regarding how you thought Obama would be regarding washington insiders.

I don't even know exactly what I thought, but I didn't think there would be soooooo many Clinton appointments. I thought he would put in new blood.


Did I also not have you stating something regarding him being different or change from Kerry as well or was that someone else?

It must have been someone else.
 
I don't even know exactly what I thought, but I didn't think there would be soooooo many Clinton appointments. I thought he would put in new blood.


I fully agree and fully understand your sentiment here, this has been my point all along. Now could this all work out when he takes office to your liking? Quite possible, however his appointments are not inline with his campaign promise.

It must have been someone else.


no worries.
 
I fully agree and fully understand your sentiment here, this has been my point all along. Now could this all work out when he takes office to your liking? Quite possible, however his appointments are not inline with his campaign promise.

no worries.

I think he plans on seeing to all the changes personally....yeah...:roll:
 
If you guys are going to be all over each other, get a room.

:2razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom