if Obama was more
we wouldn't have to SPECULATE on his motives for controlling dissenting opinion.
But he's attacked everyone who's attacked him and many who haven't.
He's an idealogue who wants to apparently stiffle opposition in any way possible: thru Gibbs, thru fear mongering, thru demonization, thru passage of laws his administration has suggested.
It would be nice to be able to hold him to his word of Pre Election promises.
More transparent than he is, more transparent than President Bush, more transparent than what, Mike?: You use a comparative without offering a benchmark. Anybody can be more transparent than they are. A reading of the gospels will give you a quick understanding of that. The ten commandments cause quarrels — is that Though shalt not Kill or Thou Shalt not Murder?
As far as comparison to Bush, I leave that one to you and I wait with bated breath to see what you have to say there.
Mr. Gibbs is the White House Press secretary. It's his job to talk back. Why you would think he is either more or less than a press secretary is beyond me. Why you believe that he would allow lies and distortions to go by is beyond me as well, especially considering the amount of time Republican Administrations going back at least as far as Nixon have spent attacking "the media" when "the media" didn't back the Republican party line. Especially when the last Administration made its preference for Fox known, and Fox made a point of skewing its coverage.
It is the job of the administration to get laws through that it feels will help the country, and indeed, one might well argue, this is the reason that the country elected not only a Democratic Administration, but a Democratic Congress as well. To suggest that this is some sort of rotten thing the Administration is doing to spite the people seems to me to be slightly disingenuous. This is what they were elected for. That and the fact that the electorate seemed deeply upset with the way that the Republicans had been managing things.
Now it's understood that the Republicans would wish to steer things in another direction. The Republicans are for the present the loyal opposition, to borrow a phrase from the Brits, and you, as a member of that opposition, would certainly see things differently. But to suggest that the party in power is off base because they are exercising power does seem to me to be a bit silly. Why else would they be in politics, for the free beer?
I'm sorry, but I simply don't see that. I see two constituencies with two distinct sets of fears, and I see each party attempting to address the fears of their own constituency. Being a Liberal myself, I certainly see my own fears as more important because it seems clear to me that the stakes are higher — population collapse, famine, massive water shortages and wars.
I understand that those on the right see things differently, and that my concerns seem to be fear mongering from where they, and you, Mike, are sitting.
I wish there might be some way we could find that would enable us to actually measure the reality of these worries that we have, left and right, and set out a useful and objectively agreed upon list in order of their importance so we could go about tackling them. As an occasional asthmatic, for example, you might imagine that breathing is pretty much at the top of my own personal list. Where it might be for the CEO of BP is anybody's guess.
I will confide that I'm very attached to breathing, though, and I'm frankly rather resistant to folks who try to make me compromise on the issue so they can have more profits. And I really do like money, too. Really.
On the whole, while I too have issues with The President, and certainly with his policy about Gitmo and his failure to address The PATRIOT ACT, I understand that the country is not obligated to agree with me, and they are by and large happier with the man than I am. And he seems to be doing a pretty good job for Republican Lite.