Obama's Birth Certificate thing...

digster wrote:

I think the problem with how the far left is going to feel in the coming four years is that they voted for a moderate Democrat who is close to the American center on foreign policy matters, and will govern accordingly. No policy positions Obama stated throughout the general election campaign could have made anyone think that in terms of policy he was different than the extreme progressives who typically support candidates such as Nader. No nationalized health care, no immediate withdrawl of Iraq, etc. The majority of people who voted for Obama (considering the majority of the American populations) are moderate. They wanted bipartisan support between Republicans and Democrats. You may believe that such "moderate" governance is bad, and 'more of the same', but it's what people voted for him for. He didn't campaign as a far-left liberal, so why would he govern like one? To do so would be disingenuous.

As for these people having been in Washington longer, that's a fairer criticism, although I think in part unfounded, but it's a far better argument than Obama not being a 'change' agent because he's not governing from the far left, and not appointing people accordingly. Maybe someone can answer this for me; what exactly during the general election campaign made you think Obama would govern from the far left, and has therefore left you subsequently disappointed with his choices thus far? Maybe I missed something. I thought we were electing a centrist Democrat who was working to improve bipartisanship between the left and right.

digster wrote:

Change means bipartisanship. Change means bridging the gap.

I'm asking; show me what policy or speech during the general election campaign signaled that Obama would govern as a far-left politician, and appoint people accordingly?

digster wrote:

Well, some of those are more legitimate criticisms. Although I personally wasn't under the impression that Obama's "change" approach to Washington meant appointing people who had never stepped foot in Washington before, but still, there's no doubt that many of the people on his team have thick resumes, and with thick resumes come controversy. I must say, though, that I'm a little suprised by the 'hawks' comment. These are mostly centrist foreign policy people when it comes to the broad sprectrum of American political thought. They are hawks if you use the progressive movement of the nation as your starting point, but to do that the progressives would not be progressive; they'd be moderates. So you knew he was a centrist, and he is therefore appointing centrist people. I guess I fail to see how that is surprising. If he fails to bring troops home from Iraq within his first term, we'll have something to talk about. If he does nothing to curb special interests in Washington, we'll have something to talk about. But I keep asking Roland to show me where Obama claimed to be or campaigned for a far-left-wing ideology. Maybe something will have shown up by the time I post this, but I haven't seen anything yet. I think some on the far left will be upset to find Obama building bridges between the left and right, rather than the Democrats and the far left, but Obama never claimed or campaigned to be interested in doing the latter work.

digster wrote:

I'm not sure what you're criticizing Obama of here. If far-left voters voted for him thinking 'change' meant far-left policies, how is that Obama's fault? Likewise, if people voted for Obama for reasons other than his speeches, policies, etc. how can he be held accountable for that? Again, I'm saying these things

-The majority of those that voted for Obama were in the so-called American 'moderate.'
-His policy positions were moderate, and he campaigned as such in terms of his politics and judgment.
-Thus far, his choices have been primarily in the American 'moderate', whether slightly to the right or to the left, thereby fulfilling his promise of a bipartisan cabinet.

Do you feel any of the above is false?