I've kept my mouth shut, but can't take it anymore

After being personally bashed on SoWal for my political beliefs, I took a break, but I can no longer "let it go." When Barack Obama was elected, although I did not vote for him, I was willing to give him a chance. However, less than a week has passed since the election and there are disturbing signals from Obama and his team that this is going to be an interesting 4 years.

Below is a link where a member of Obama's team talks about the fact that he will be "ready to rule on day one." Add that to the fact that there is talk about a national holiday to honor him, and that he is planning to keep is campaign database handy (so he know who supported him ;-) ;-) so he can dole out pay-backs) and he is starting to sound more and more like a dictator.

I seriously thought that American Presidents GOVERNED, not ruled like a king. Silly me for misinterpreting the constitution--but that is all down the toilet anyway.

I've had my say and now let the personal bashing begin . . .

Don't forget the link:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner...0/obama-spokesman-says-obama-ready-rule-day-1

Maybe you shouldn't view this thread: Obama's New World Order - SoWal Beaches Forum

My first post does have a link.

CCKid. I am interested in all your thoughts , as a supporter of Obama I want him to do a great job and succeed---AND I want the people (and Sowallers) that didn't vote for him to chime in with valid criticism when and where necessary--which you did. Good for you.

I want to hear your thoughts, hopefully, without the bashing on either side of the issue. The election is over--I say less bashing and more posting from you!

If it was 2000 and a dem advanced the thesis that they wanted to give GW a chance but they "can't take it anymore" because of all of the following disturbing signs:

• One of Bush's advisors called him the decider or said he was going to be ready to rule
• A dozen hard core supporters in Texas wanted to prematurely have a national holiday in his name
• His campaign thought it was a good idea to hang onto their donor list

I would tell them the same thing I told you about Obama- that their filters are not allowing them to truly give GW a chance. Furthermore, if they embedded a link to a far left biased blog that draws kooky conclusions I would suggest to them that they consider alternative news and info sources...

[/QUOTE]

Sorry I'm not a You-Tube guru and don't know how to imbed videos. I got to the site through a link from the Drudge Report and have never visited the blog site before. But this is all a distraction from the point that the video exists. If you don't want to access it from my link, go to You-Tube and you'll find it there. You stick to your kooky liberals sources and I'll stick to my kooky conservative sources ;-).

What I "can't take anymore" is not speaking my mind on SoWal. If those of you who are left of center want to have meaningful debates, all sides must be respected. I decided several weeks ago to "just let it go" because I have a really busy life in the real world. However, I just feel a need to pop in now and then and give all of you left of center folks a reality check. Not everyone agrees with you. You may not have noticed that most conservatives who have posted on SoWal have given up. It is not because they have abandoned their values. It is because it is not worth the time and anguish to do so on SoWal.

I have a very good friend who started a thread about an innocent question that she had about Obama. She had no hidden agenda, yet she was viciously attacked to the point that she was in tears. She has vowed to never again log on to SoWal. That is sad for you because you will miss out on her insightful comments. It is hard not to get caught up in debates on SoWal, but it is very difficult to debate online because so much of our communication methods (body language, intonation, etc.,) don't come across online. My friend was very hurt by people that she knows in the community. It used to be that nobody SoWal knew each other. It is no longer an anonymous community and many of us know each other in the real world. Somehow though, when discussing politics online, some posters don't care who they hurt and denigrate and don't care that they know the person in the real world. These same people would never have said these things to my friend's face, but somehow being online provides a false buffer. Although SoWal is a virtual community, my friend has real feelings. Does this behavior reflect on the attitude of the Democrat party toward those who disagree with their platform? Sometimes I fear that it does. The behavior of many in this forum support my fears.

I really want the next president to be successful because we need it right now. I will support Obama until he gives me reason not to, and in the meantime I will be watching him very carefully. Everything that he does and says between now and Jan. 20 will be a foreshadowing of the type of Administration that he will run.

Obama is not trying to please me and he couldn't care less about what I and other conservatives want. In spite of his claim that he will be everyone's president, he has already shown the typical partisanship that was expected. In a way that disappoints me because I really could believe in him if he would show that he is in this for the good of our country and not to just progress the liberal agenda. And yes, there are those who think the liberal agenda is for the good of our country, but almost 1/2 of Americans disagree.

I'm sorry your friend had her feelings hurt. I agree that the politics forum can get heated and that this is a cold medium. But regardless, I do not feel I am treating you or anyone unfairly. I'm glad you are back to posting. I hope you don't stop...

Below is the portion of the transcript from the Meet the Press interview that was referenced in your original post.

Your point (correct me if I am wrong) is that you are trying to give an Obama presidency a chance but that the comments made in the interview are one of many disturbing signs that Obama sounds like a dictator...

*****************


MR. BROKAW: Let's begin by talking about the transition. What are the priorities during this transition time for your team and how you work through the many challenges that are ahead of you?

MS. JARRETT: Well, we hit the ground running first thing Wednesday. Wednesday, President-elect Obama--it feels so good to say President-elect Obama--pulled together our team and we began to lay out the framework for how we want to move forward. As you would expect, both the economy and national security are top priorities. Friday, President-elect Obama brought in his advisers--people such as Paul Volcker and Bob Rubin, Governor Granholm, Mayor Villaraigosa from Los Angeles--trying to bring together a group of people--Warren Buffett--to help focus on the economy. So we will be looking to be efficient transparent, bipartisan. We want the American people to understand the transition and how we're moving forward. And in the days and weeks ahead, President-elect Obama will be making announcements as he makes decisions.

MR. BROKAW: What's the working model? Are you going to try to be a shadow government or just a very interested spectator off to the side?

MS. JARRETT: Well, it's a good question. There is one president at a time. President Bush is still the president. He's graciously invited President-elect Obama to the White House tomorrow to begin their conversations of the transition. So we respect that. He will be the president until January 20th. However, giving--given, really, the daunting challenges that we face, it's important that President-elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one. So we will be working closely with his administration. We're reviewing the agencies now. He will be making key personnel decisions. He gets national security briefings every day now as well, but he will not be the president until January 20th.

The choice of the verb "rule" is poor.

Much more troubling IMHO was Obama's response to a reporter's question concerning Iran. It was not his finest moment.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion, then don't start out by stating that the President-elect will be doling out pay-backs, is ready to have a national holiday declared in his honor and is becoming a dictator.

Stick to the point - if you think that Valerie Jarrett made an unfortunate choice of words when she said "rule", that's a valid point. Lumping that together with a couple of points of conjecture to call him a "dictator" is something else entirely. You've combined one solid news source with one fringe group activity and one complete guess to construct a "trend" which supports your opinion. They don't deserve equal footing.

And my pointing this out is not a personal attack - it is based entirely on your writings and is confined to that subject.

The choice of the verb "rule" is poor.

And if this was the original poster's point (and delivery), very few of us would have disagreed with her...

(EDIT: per Here4Good's nicely articulated post just above this one)

And my pointing this out is not a personal attack - it is based entirely on your writings and is confined to that subject.

Oh, and by the way - you know Valerie Jarrett was born in Iran, don't you? There, go nuts with that.

I think this is exactly what CCK was referring to. You go out of your way to point out that you are not attacking, and the very next sentence is a slam.

CCK, the internets is dominated by left-leaning folks, just look at "Obama's Internet Army." It's no surprise that SoWal.com is also.

You are absolutely right about that last comment I made, and that is why I had already deleted it before you posted this.

I will support Obama until he gives me reason not to, and in the meantime I will be watching him very carefully. Everything that he does and says between now and Jan. 20 will be a foreshadowing of the type of Administration that he will run.

Just curious. What is it about this president elect that makes you and many others want to watch him so carefully? I hear this a lot from folks who did not vote for Obama but I do not recall ever hearing anything like this from folks whose preferred candidate did not win in any previous election. Even if they were watching and listening carefully I never heard so many declare there was a need to like I do these days...

Just curious. What is it about this president elect that makes you and many others want to watch him so carefully? I hear this a lot from folks who did not vote for Obama but I do not recall ever hearing anything like this from folks whose preferred candidate did not win in any previous election. Even if they were watching and listening carefully I never heard them say there was a need to until now...

Geo, this is the first Presidential transition during a war in a long time so this time around, it really is different. It is well accepted that Obama is thin in the national security arena hence the salvos from the ever-opportunistic Russians and Iranians. Obama's response to the reporter's question about Iran was disconcerting.

The Iranians understand and respect strength and resolve. I know many on this board disagree but it is how I see the world. Remember when the Iranians grabbed the hostages when Jimmy Carter was President? They viewed JC as weak and it turns out they were correct. When Reagan campaigned for President in 1980, in response to questions concerning the Americans held hostage in Iran, he would simply say that every option is on the table. Within a few minutes of Reagan being sworn in, Iran released the hostages. Obama will learn and will build a good national security team. The lesson he has to learn IMHO is that diplomacy works best when it is not your primary option.

I think this is exactly what CCK was referring to. You go out of your way to point out that you are not attacking, and the very next sentence is a slam.

CCK, the internets is dominated by left-leaning folks, just look at "Obama's Internet Army." It's no surprise that SoWal.com is also.

This is a very interesting point of view about the use of the web supporters being used as a hedge against conservative opposing views, but I think it is misguided. First of all, the popular vote between the candidates wasn't terribly far off. Often when one Army rises, another does too, so strategically, in order to win the support of the populace, this would be a mistake. Although in times of need, Obama was able to get some Obamatrons specifically placed like chess pieces, why does everyone think that everyone has been brainwashed or it could be that they were so ambitious in helping their candidate? That would be saying that half of the Country has drank the Koolaid. Liberals aren't the only ones who have access to the internets. Anyone with access can e-mail their Congressman/woman now, so how does his mailing list differ from any other one?

and CCK, I am sorry your friend felt attacked here. It takes a strong resolve to communicate on a message board, especially in light of the fact that Sowal is a small community. Your friend wouldn't be the first to feel slighted here, myself included, and she won't be last. It's just the nature of this medium.

Just curious. What is it about this president elect that makes you and many others want to watch him so carefully? I hear this a lot from folks who did not vote for Obama but I do not recall ever hearing anything like this from folks whose preferred candidate did not win in any previous election. Even if they were watching and listening carefully I never heard so many declare there was a need to like I do these days...

They're suffering from post campaign attack withdrawal syndrome.

it's so sad that someone who says he wanted to give obama a chance even though he didn't vote for him decided that prior to his inauguration, he had to find another way to discredit him. obama has withstood all the hateful untruths that were spun throughout his campaign by republicans, including mccain and palin along with the pundits and has come out victorious. he has 4 years to make his mark, either through good judgment or by screwing up as bush did all 8 years. we can all comment on bush because we now have his track record. for god's sake, let obama make his, good or bad. he certainly won't be able to right all the wrongs committed by bush and the republicans these past years but he deserves a chance. anyone jumping all over him now is just looking for the negative because they can't stand the fact that he won. get over yourself.

Just curious. What is it about this president elect that makes you and many others want to watch him so carefully? I hear this a lot from folks who did not vote for Obama but I do not recall ever hearing anything like this from folks whose preferred candidate did not win in any previous election. Even if they were watching and listening carefully I never heard so many declare there was a need to like I do these days...

Obama is inexperienced and new to national politics. He is a legislator, not a governer (as in person who govens, not a Governor) and how he will lead is an unknown. His record in the Illinois Senate and his short unfinished term as a U.S. Senator are not enough to let Americans know who he is. We all know that campaigns are full of rhetoric of bi-partisan promises and "reaching across the aisle." However, all indications, even this early, show that Obama is going to hit the ground running by fulfilling obligations to his party. For example, his appointment of Emanuel as Chief-of-Staff, a hard-line Clinton-ite, only demonstrates his commitment to the party. Talk of executive orders immediately upon taking office on issues such as Guantanamo, oil drilling, stem cell research, etc., only prove that he and his team want to make a dramatic turn to the left, not exactly bi-partisanship. I hope he proves otherwise, but until he does, I cannot trust him.

His past associations in college and early in his career show that he has had quite radical leaning tendencies. I'm waiting to see if he is going to maintain his associations with the Ayers and the Wrights and the Farakhans. While he disavows any connection with these men, time will tell whether he is being honest.

I'm uncomfortable with how his campaign has slighted the press that did not endorse him. I'm uncomfortable with how the press that did endorse him was so obviously slanted toward him. Geo, you proved this point yourself when you suggested that I listen to NPR as opposed to Rush Limbaugh and watch CNN and opposed to O'Reilly. Limbaugh and O'Reilly are political commentators and therefore openly take a stand. Limbaugh is conservative, while O'Reilly is Libertarian. When you listen to/watch their programs you know what you are getting. NPR and CNN are news organizations that are ethically supposed to present a balanced view of the news. Even you recognize that this has not been done and by your post prove the point that they are liberal leaning. However, not everyone has such a wide range of sources as I and while I get information from both sides, not everyone does. It alarms me that the media such as NPR and CNN and NBC, etc., present news as unbiased when in fact it is often very left-leaning. This does not bode well for those who are trying to find the truth and leaves it to the individual to sift through all the media and to watch our leaders in order to make judgments ourselves instead of letting the news tell us what to think. I do not trust the mainstream media to be objective about Obama.

Obama knows that he is being watched carefully. His staff knows that he is untested and that we are all waiting to be introduced to the Barack Obama as President of the United States. The moves he makes in the next few weeks will be very telling.

I want Obama to succeed, but I don't trust him yet. He is a politician after all, he is only a man and therefore has flaws. I hope he turns out to be a person of integrity, someone that I can respect even if our political views are different, but he will have to earn that respect from me.

After being personally bashed on SoWal for my political beliefs, I took a break, but I can no longer "let it go." When Barack Obama was elected, although I did not vote for him, I was willing to give him a chance. However, less than a week has passed since the election and there are disturbing signals from Obama and his team that this is going to be an interesting 4 years.

Below is a link where a member of Obama's team talks about the fact that he will be "ready to rule on day one." Add that to the fact that there is talk about a national holiday to honor him, and that he is planning to keep is campaign database handy (so he know who supported him ;-) ;-) so he can dole out pay-backs) and he is starting to sound more and more like a dictator.

I seriously thought that American Presidents GOVERNED, not ruled like a king. Silly me for misinterpreting the constitution--but that is all down the toilet anyway.

I've had my say and now let the personal bashing begin . . .

Don't forget the link:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner...0/obama-spokesman-says-obama-ready-rule-day-1

Camper you are taking this a bit to serious and the only people who are experienced to be President of the good ole USA are past Presidents of the USA. President Obama will do just fine. We have a system that makes any kind of controversial legislation difficult to pass, and he knows there is a lot of give and take to get anything through congress. I loose more sleep worrying about the aggressive tax structure of this county than who is President. Anyway, at the end of his first term, he will have earned your vote and support.

Obama is inexperienced and new to national politics. He is a legislator, not a governer (as in person who govens, not a Governor) and how he will lead is an unknown. His record in the Illinois Senate and his short unfinished term as a U.S. Senator are not enough to let Americans know who he is. We all know that campaigns are full of rhetoric of bi-partisan promises and "reaching across the aisle." However, all indications, even this early, show that Obama is going to hit the ground running by fulfilling obligations to his party. For example, his appointment of Emanuel as Chief-of-Staff, a hard-line Clinton-ite, only demonstrates his commitment to the party. Talk of executive orders immediately upon taking office on issues such as Guantanamo, oil drilling, stem cell research, etc., only prove that he and his team want to make a dramatic turn to the left, not exactly bi-partisanship. I hope he proves otherwise, but until he does, I cannot trust him.

Surprise! He is a Democrat not a Republican.

His past associations in college and early in his career show that he has had quite radical leaning tendencies. I'm waiting to see if he is going to maintain his associations with the Ayers and the Wrights and the Farakhans. While he disavows any connection with these men, time will tell whether he is being honest.

Non-issue for me.

I'm uncomfortable with how his campaign has slighted the press that did not endorse him. I'm uncomfortable with how the press that did endorse him was so obviously slanted toward him. Geo, you proved this point yourself when you suggested that I listen to NPR as opposed to Rush Limbaugh and watch CNN and opposed to O'Reilly. Limbaugh and O'Reilly are political commentators and therefore openly take a stand. Limbaugh is conservative, while O'Reilly is Libertarian. When you listen to/watch their programs you know what you are getting. NPR and CNN are news organizations that are ethically supposed to present a balanced view of the news. Even you recognize that this has not been done and by your post prove the point that they are liberal leaning. However, not everyone has such a wide range of sources as I and while I get information from both sides, not everyone does. It alarms me that the media such as NPR and CNN and NBC, etc., present news as unbiased when in fact it is often very left-leaning. This does not bode well for those who are trying to find the truth and leaves it to the individual to sift through all the media and to watch our leaders in order to make judgments ourselves instead of letting the news tell us what to think. I do not trust the mainstream media to be objective about Obama.

O'Reilly is a populist and espouses views very far from a Libertarian philosophy on many matters. Geo was suggesting that you listen/watch to NPR and CNN in addition to Rush, O'Reilly, Hammity, etc..not instead of. An "opposed to" option for Rush and ilk would be Randi Rhodes...have fun with that.

Obama knows that he is being watched carefully. His staff knows that he is untested and that we are all waiting to be introduced to the Barack Obama as President of the United States. The moves he makes in the next few weeks will be very telling.

I want Obama to succeed, but I don't trust him yet. He is a politician after all, he is only a man and therefore has flaws. I hope he turns out to be a person of integrity, someone that I can respect even if our political views are different, but he will have to earn that respect from me.

I distrust this last statement, and I hope that distrust proves unfounded, but like Obama's actions, the posts that are made in the coming weeks will be very telling.

No. He is the President-Elect therefore all his actions leading up to the actual inauguration are fair game. The team he has now is the same team he will have in the White House.

Correction; it's the "office of the president elect"
www.change.gov

Correction; it's the "office of the president elect"
www.change.gov

Awesome website. What a great way for the American public to keep up with the transition, since so many get most info from the internet.

Kudos to Obama for keeping up with the times.

Camp Creek, you have your mind made up and just keep rehashing negativity from the campaign. If there is a specific stated policy or idea you would like to discuss, I am certainly interested in hearing your views and opinions, but not in recycled sour grapes.

The majority of voters disagreed with you and elected Obama president. He campaigned on change and a different platform from the current administration. It is not fair to now criticize him because he now wants to actually change things in line with those same stated policies. Guantanamo, stem cell research, alternative fuel sources, drilling, are all things he clearly stated and discussed in detail during the campaign.

Yes, he is reviewing Bush's executive orders - as there were more than 250 of them and Obama and Bush differ greatly in their opinions, obviously there are some he will wish to counteract.

Yes, he has selected a fellow Illinois Congressman w/ experience in a Democratic White House as his chief of staff. As there has been only one Democratic president in the last 20+ years, obviously there would be ties to the Clintons if he chose someone experienced.

Yes, he wants prisoners in Gitmo to have trials instead of being held indefinitely without trial. This has been a shameful and anti-American practice that I certainly don't have a problem with him ending.

His connections to Wright (yes), Ayers (slight), and Farrakhan (no) and their possible influence and shared beliefs (or severe lack thereof) are quite well publicized and have been fully dissected and spotlighted by the media. How about we revisit them only if one of them shows up at the White House OR does something wrong in this decade?

Thanks to the internet and the wide variety of sources available, there are MANY options for information and enough independent voices that bias and secrecy are non-issues. It has always been the chore of intelligent people to sift through large amounts of information and evidence, weigh possible biases, and then decide for themselves which ones to believe. You can't find a 100% unbiased source, which is why you need to garner information from more than one.

Surprise! He is a Democrat not a Republican.


Non-issue for me.



O'Reilly is a populist and espouses views very far from a Libertarian philosophy on many matters. Geo was suggesting that you listen/watch to NPR and CNN in addition to Rush, O'Reilly, Hammity, etc..not instead of. An "opposed to" option for Rush and ilk would be Randi Rhodes...have fun with that.


I distrust this last statement, and I hope that distrust proves unfounded, but like Obama's actions, the posts that are made in the coming weeks will be very telling.

So many assumptions and preconceived notions. In fact I'm not a regular listener of Rush, Hannity, or O'Reilly. These days my driving entertainment consists of Disney DVD's.

I have not been elected to the office of President of the United States. In all due respect, and I mean this in a non-confrontational friendly way, I have no responsibility to you, whatsoever, for gaining your trust. I sincerely mean what I have said about wanting Obama to succeed, but if you don't believe me, I couldn't care less. We will never see eye-to-eye on all the issues, but I would hope that you would consider me a person of integrity and give me the benefit of the doubt as I do for you.

God, this is good! I hope this thread never dies!

Awesome website. What a great way for the American public to keep up with the transition, since so many get most info from the internet.

Kudos to Obama for keeping up with the times.

better read up on the site quickly, they've been "scrubbing it" over the weekend, changing controversial wording etc...

better read up on the site quickly, they've been "scrubbing it" over the weekend, changing controversial wording etc...

That's fine. I look at it at making an effort to appeal to more than just his supporters. Being sensitive to the way statements are worded is not a bad thing.

That's fine. I look at it at making an effort to appeal to more than just his supporters. Being sensitive to the way statements are worded is not a bad thing.

Of course it's not a bad thing to be sensitive on how things are worded, but the website for the "office of the President elect" ought to have it's editing spotless and I'm not talking about small syntax errors.