CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!

Team of rivals. There's his Repube in the Cabinet.

Whew! It coulda been Joe Leiberman!

In other news showing the Obama Era in full swing, Anne Coulter's jaw has been wired shut, negating any need for legislation on the Fairness Doctrine.

Sympathy cards are pouring in....

Didn't Gates refuse to say that waterboarding is torture while speaking before the senate?

But since we won't be torturing anymore, I guess its a moot point.

We won't be torturing anymore.

How many times do I have to say that before I start believing it?

His first smart move.

Finally!

Someone who is not a Clinton retread!

He's a Bush retread!

Change like we can all believe and hope and believe and hope in for.

I don't see what Gates has done in Defense to earn more time. Keeping on a Republican Defense Secretary also is an implicit admission that Republicans are stronger on defense than Democrats, a notion that ought to have been disproven by the last eight years.

Gates is a spook extraordinaire, one who actually does know where all the bodies are buried.

Keeping him on for a year is about the time it will take to let him complete some of the needed Rummy-related changes he has been working on in his short tenure, and provide a smooth transition to a new DoD chief.

Obama seems intent on demonstrating his ability control people who might disagree with him and people with strong personalities like Clinton.

Or another explanation could be that he doesn't have a clue and feels the need to surround himself with the old guard.

I wonder for how long. I really like that Obama is willing to recognize that party should not come before country. Although this does give a lot of ammunition to righties, which is never good (both figuratively and literally) :)

Yeah, he strikes me as a guy who hasn't a clue.

I don't see what Gates has done in Defense to earn more time. Keeping on a Republican Defense Secretary also is an implicit admission that Republicans are stronger on defense than Democrats, a notion that ought to have been disproven by the last eight years.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2008-11-26 09:41 AM | Reply

If it had to be a Republican, Hagel would have been a better choice.

I really like that Obama is willing to recognize that party should not come before country.

That's a better way to look at it. But back in 2000, Bush had a stronger reason to placate the other side than Obama does today. All he gave Dems was Norm Mineta in a minor Cabinet post. Every spot Obama gives to a Republican in his Cabinet is one less opportunity for a Democrat who paid his or her dues and merits the promotion.

may I have one Democray PLEASE.

where's the change?

Obama signed on to the bailout because its what his Wall Street campaign financiers wanted. Privatize profits, socialize risk (for the few). The system is rigged. Rules are: They can never lose, workers will always lose (unless they unite). Obama was a gift of appeasement to the masses, intended to permit business as usual. His endorsement of Paulson's bailout as legitimate and necessary and use of Rubin and Summers reveals not only a compromised ethic, it opened the henhouse to the fox.

When is the pillaging and treason going to stop?

Pretty please.

"Every spot Obama gives to a Republican in his Cabinet is one less opportunity for a Democrat who paid his or her dues and merits the promotion."

Wesley Clark really fell off the face of the Earth, huh? As the former NATO commander and a Democrat I thought he would have a roll in this administration.

I agree with you that keeping Gates almost seems like he is saying "You were right," to Bush. That flies in the face of a lot of evidence.

Every spot Obama gives to a Republican in his Cabinet is one less opportunity for a Democrat who paid his or her dues and merits the promotion.

Perhaps Obama realizes there isn't anybody who "merits the promotion" from the dem ranks.

Either the left values his intelligence and decision making skills or they don't.

Which is it?

Obama signed on to the bailout because its what his Wall Street campaign financiers wanted. Privatize profits, socialize risk (for the few). The system is rigged. Rules are: They can never lose, workers will always lose (unless they unite). Obama was a gift of appeasement to the masses, intended to permit business as usual. His endorsement of Paulson's bailout as legitimate and necessary and use of Rubin and Summers reveals not only a compromised ethic, it opened the henhouse to the fox.
#13 | Posted by nutcase

Obama seems intent on demonstrating his ability control people who might disagree with him and people with strong personalities like Clinton.

Either that, or his mantra of change to pull in the suckers was nothing more than a heap of bullshit.

Name a better person for the position or STFU.

Either that, or his mantra of change to pull in the suckers was nothing more than a heap of bullshit.
#17 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Change was so loosely defined that he will always be able to claim he's bringing change no matter what happens or what he does.

I don't see what Gates has done in Defense to earn more time.
#6 | Posted by rcade

I think that because Gates took a "non-Rumsfeld" stance against the Bush Admin., he is viewed as one of the more moderate folks in the current administration. Gates was able to make decisions of his own apart from Bush and showed that he valued the country over partisan politics. Additionally, bringing in a brand new SecDef when we're in the middle (and leaning toward the end) of the Iraq war may be seen by some as "change", but it might also re-upset the SecDef boat that was recently floundering with Runsfeld in charge. In this case, non-partisan experience really should trump change until a SecDef heir can be trained to take Gates' place. Good choice, Obama!

Change was so loosely defined that he will always be able to claim he's bringing change no matter what happens or what he does.

Except that we all know what was implied with all of the change bullshit - especially when it was bundled with hope and unity.

"Name a better person for the position or STFU."

Colin Powell? Chuck Hagel? Sam Nunn? Jim Webb?

I don't know if they're necessarily better, but they're not Bush holdovers. I just read that people like Wes Clark, David Patreus are prohibited from the position by the National Security Act because they've served in the Armed Forces in the last 10 years. Is that true? That is really stupid in my opinion.

Is that true? That is really stupid in my opinion.

Yes it is true. It may seem a little odd on the surface, but the idea of the law is to prevent the Military from taking power from the Government.

Except that we all know what was implied with all of the change bullshit - especially when it was bundled with hope and unity.
#21 | Posted by JeffJ

What do you want me to tell you, jeff? I think even that's open to debate because I saw implications of his abandonment of liberal principles. I'm sure you saw the exact opposite.

Change was so loosely defined that he will always be able to claim he's bringing change no matter what happens or what he does.

----

Agree 100%. Great packaging and marketing but lacking substance.

"It may seem a little odd on the surface, but the idea of the law is to prevent the Military from taking power from the Government."

I guess that is a valid point, but as long as the apointee were to resign and can be removed should he get too power hungry and too loyal to the military I don't see a problem with it. In fact I think it has eliminated some very qualified people from consideration.

But what happens when that 'Power Hungy' military guy has the full support of the Military? You know, all the guys with all the guns......

It's called a coup.

True some very qualified people are eliminated, but thwarting the risk of a military takeover of or country is more important.

Gates has been doing a good job. Obama needs to focus on the economy right now more than anything. He might as well leave a guy in there who knows the ropes and can work on his own.

and even from the left we get complaints on this?

so the fact that we are in two wars and all should mean that keeping him at least for awhile makes sense

and is that ME defending barrywayne with some of you guys

most be a holiday spirit miscue>>>>

i love how the righties are continuing down the hypocracy crap

no matter who obama chose

the righties would be pissed

who cares what you thought
you had your chance you sucked

shut up and move on

Yes it is true. It may seem a little odd on the surface, but the idea of the law is to prevent the Military from taking power from the Government.

the military can't do that because all rights come from the government.

-buffalobob

I don't know if they're necessarily better, but they're not Bush holdovers.
#22 | Posted by GreenDad

I would hardly call moderate Gates a "Bush holdover" as he has clearly demostrated that he does not always toe the republican line. Compared to the rest of the Bush cabinet, Gates is by far the most moderate person and most willing to put what's right over what the party is saying. Also, considering that Obama has a ton of domestic problems to deal with, he might as well keep a guy in the SecDef position that knows what he's doing with 2 wars going on and will not create more headaches for Obama to deal with. Can you imagine a new person at the job? "Uhh, President Obama, I know you're dealing with a financial crisis and healthcare issues, but could you help me figure something out about Iraq?" Why complicate Obama's already busy schedule as President when a perfectly capable person is already in the position?

Obviously, You lefties don't understand the people who actually join and serve in the military. probably because they love this country and all its traditions, laws and it's promise to all. The military rank and file would never listen to a commander who wanted to overthrow the governement. that has to come from a popular uprising. Like the 1917 revolution in Russia.

Military people are humble and have a unique quality of common sense, integrity and honor. mainly because they come from small towns and areas that believe America is a good and noble place.

I know all this is a mystery to you lefties and those qualities don't register in your feeble minds. Mainly because your heros are people llike Bill Ayers and people who think like him.

Those are the types who hate America so much they would actually kill other innocent americans to get their way

so before you start contemplating your doomsday scenarios..

Think about who would "really" destroy this country in their efforts to "save it from themselves" perhaps you lefit5es need to look in the mirror

i love how the righties are continuing down the hypocracy crap

no matter who obama chose

the righties would be pissed

who cares what you thought
you had your chance you sucked

shut up and move on

#30 | Posted by klifferd at

so apparently in 'YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD"
even the fact that I thought it was a good idea because of the men and women in harms way or is that something that you just dont give a shit about if it gets in the way of slamming us.

you STILL think that I am being hypocritical??

doenst make much sense

This has been coming for a while now and is no surprise. Gates has a done a lot to correct the problems that Rumsfeld created. He is well respected by the military and both sides of the political aisle. Unlike Rumsfeld, he also advocates "soft power" and has said that what we really need to do is staff the fund the Department of State as relatively well as we do Defense. There is no point in changing horses now that we finally have a change to extricate ourselves from Iraq.

It has become clear that Barry pretty much agrees with Bush on his approach to the world. When are libs going to apologize and suck W's cock.

I agree with you that keeping Gates almost seems like he is saying "You were right," to Bush.

gates was part of the ISG that showed Bush where he was failing (which Bush largely ignored). Don't have a problem with keeping Gates in position while Obama underfills around him and gets rid of all Bush's neo-con butt buddies. Gates stays on 6 months-a year then moves on. By then the withdrawl will have been shaped and the afghanistan expansion completed.
And Thom-since Barry correctly prescribed both the afghanistan increase and fixed deadline for withdrawl from Iraq before Bush accepted them as the right way to go, I'd say Obama has been educating Bush for the last year. And as for sucking Bush's cock, you righties have a waiting list to do that clear up to the next millenium. Hell, Reagan's been dead for years and you guys still can't get your faces out of his lap...

Which is it, righties?

Is Obama a wild-eyed Marxist bent on destroying everything this country stands for, or is he not bringing the change you so dearly wanted?

and so I guess you would NEVER say the same thing about dems and FDR perhaps...........

and again

libs want bush to give up economic power already to obama and even appoint one of his people early

but the left doesnt see that gates might be okay to stay at least for awhile because of two wars going on

EVEN though I understand this is the FIRST time it has happened so it is different

libs want bush to give up economic power already to obama and even appoint one of his people early

but the left doesnt see that gates might be okay to stay at least for awhile because of two wars going on

#40 | Posted by bushlovertwo

(1) Try to remember that just because one pundit or media-type suggests something it doesn't necessarily mean "libs" all want it.

(2) I, for one, think keeping Gates is a good idea. Essentially he was brought in to help Bush figure a way out of Iraq. That's what he's been doing, and a little continuity there will be extremely useful. AND - if he had any real issues with Obama's policies he would have said no.

Sounds like the Iraqis may ask Gates to leave a little sooner :

BAGHDAD, Nov. 26 -- Iraqi lawmakers postponed until Thursday a scheduled vote on a security agreement that would extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq. But they have agreed to make the pact subject to a national referendum next year that could require a complete American troop withdrawal by July 2010 -- 18 months ahead of what the agreement now envisions.

The referendum was a last-minute concession to Iraq's largest Sunni party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, which has long demanded that the agreement be put to a nationwide vote. "If there is no referendum, we will not vote yes to the agreement," said Omar Abdul Sattar, an Islamic Party lawmaker, speaking before parliament postponed the vote.

The security pact requires that U.S. troops pull out of cities and towns by summer 2009 and withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011. But if Iraq's public rejects the security agreement in the referendum, scheduled for July next year, U.S. troops would have one year to leave, according to Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish lawmakers.

Guess ending the war is no longer a priority.

I think retaining Gates is a good idea. So is his pick of Marine Gen. James Jones, to head the national security council.

As for paul volcher? Though I respect him, he certainly is not a "new face" as the messiah described him today. At 81 years of age, and having worked for carter and reagan, he's not new in any way shape or form. he's a very independent, opinionated cnbc interviewee who has seen his better days.....

...I picture Iraq to be liken to a car.
...I picture the US Troops to be liken to a parent.
...I picture the Iraqi Government to be liken to a student driver.
...I envision that student driver telling the parent that he is skilled enough to drive the car alone.
...I envision the reluctant parent, having the wisdom that the student driver does not yet possess or understand, willing to try some baby steps first.
...I envision the parent slowly handing the keys to the student driver and then moving to the South Eastern Borders of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, standing by to see if he needs to rush back in and rescue the student driver and the car.
...I envision the car getting dinged up a little bit.
...I envision the student driver getting a ticket or two.
...I envision the parent going back and forth with giving permission and taking it away until the student driver proves he has obtained the necessary skills to go on a road trip alone.

The only thing I can put my finger on is, is the parent the kind willing to let this teenager drive to Panama City Beach with his buddies at 16 or is the parent the kind who would make him wait until he was out of highschool?

Corky--

Ann Coulter may have broken her jaw--but she has a new book out in January 2009

"I would hardly call moderate Gates a "Bush holdover""

I get what you are saying, but he is in fact a Bush holdover, and at one of the most important cabinet positions.

"Also, considering that Obama has a ton of domestic problems to deal with, he might as well keep a guy in the SecDef position that knows what he's doing with 2 wars going on and will not create more headaches for Obama to deal with."

Except that one of Obama's key campaign positions was about Iraq. I'm not sure if that will change anything, but I don't see us getting out of Iraq quickly with Bush's SecDef still around. But then again, if Gates and Patreaus' successes continue maybe we can take our time getting out of Iraq.

"Uhh, President Obama, I know you're dealing with a financial crisis and healthcare issues"

I would hope given all that is going on that healthcare issues are a distant 3rd to the economy and national security.

I like the job Gates has done. I consider him one of the few bright spots to this Administration. If only he were there from the beginning instead of Rumsfeld the world might look quite different today. So I think this is a pretty good move. With most everything Obama does in the beginning I'm looking at everything with optimism and hope. I voted for him and really want him to do well.

I don't see what Gates has done in Defense to earn more time. Keeping on a Republican Defense Secretary also is an implicit admission that Republicans are stronger on defense than Democrats, a notion that ought to have been disproven by the last eight years.

Maybe Obama does not agree with that notion.

But back in 2000, Bush had a stronger reason to placate the other side than Obama does today. All he gave Dems was Norm Mineta in a minor Cabinet post.

You must be forgetting George Tenet.

Gates and Jones are good choices.

#33 | Posted by HillBillyJihad

I, being on active duty, appreciate the sentiment HillBilly. However, I still think all the laws ensuring the civilian control of the military establishment are vital to our nation's continued security. They help prevent people with the notion of a military coup from even considering joining the armed forces.

Personally, I like Gates much more than I did Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld always seemed stuck on trying to do the job with too few resources and he enforced his views through the budgetary process. He was more of a politician than a leader.

I don't see what Gates has done in Defense to earn more time. Keeping on a Republican Defense Secretary also is an implicit admission that Republicans are stronger on defense than Democrats, a notion that ought to have been disproven by the last eight years.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2008-11-26 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do a little research before you jump to your next clown-clusion. Gates didn't "earn more time." He didn't seek the SecDef job in the first place. He was also the first pick to serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security when it was created following the September 11, 2001 attacks, but he declined the appointment in order to remain President of Texas A&M University. He did leave that job, reluctantly, to serve his country. He has kept (probably still keeps) a count down clock on his desk, counting down the days until his return to private life. Obama pursuaded Gates to stay on; not vice versa.

"Do a little research before you jump to your next clown-clusion."

Why don't you?

since 911 was obviously an inside job...Gates should obviously go, but Obama needs to stay alive so we can invade Paki next for whom ~ again?

I don't see what Gates has done in Defense to earn more time. Keeping on a Republican Defense Secretary also is an implicit admission that Republicans are stronger on defense than Democrats, a notion that ought to have been disproven by the last eight years.

Maybe Obama does not agree with that notion.

But back in 2000, Bush had a stronger reason to placate the other side than Obama does today. All he gave Dems was Norm Mineta in a minor Cabinet post.

You must be forgetting George Tenet.

#48 | Posted by Mato at 2008-11-27 12:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Looking at Obama's leadership picks to date, what is conspicuously absent? The Left. He has some left-of-center picks; but, the majority are all moderates. What are the lefty Obama worshipers thinking these days?

Cue "The Who"

Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again ... We don't get fooled again

Good band & great song...but then maybe Clinton's 'innocent' RFK comment hasn't been forgotten yet:>/

"What are the lefty Obama worshipers thinking these days?"

Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty we're free at last.

Hans

"What are the lefty Obama worshipers thinking these days?"

The adults are finally getting back in charge of things.

Hans

"What are the lefty Obama worshipers thinking these days?"

The Bush worshipers are looking more and more ridiculous every day.

Hans

"What are the lefty Obama worshipers thinking these days?"

How absolutely full of shit the Right was during the campaign with their screams of "Marxist!" "Communist!" "Socialist!" "He pals around with terrorists!"

"What are the lefty Obama worshipers thinking these days?"

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!!!!!

"Do a little research before you jump to your next clown-clusion."

Why don't you?

since 911 was obviously an inside job...Gates should obviously go, but Obama needs to stay alive so we can invade Paki next for whom ~ again?

#52 | Posted by Bani at 2008-11-27 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry. My mistake. I didn't realize you were that far out there. You know...just a little beyond reason. Had I known you were of the "911 was an inside job" looney tunes, I would not have bothered to respond.

"What are the lefty Obama worshipers thinking these days?"

The Bush worshipers are looking more and more ridiculous every day.

Hans

#57 | Posted by Hans at 2008-11-27 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Not a Bush worshiper, myself. I'll settle for "Goldie Locks." Not too far to the left, not too far to the right; just sensibly moderate.

Not a Bush worshiper, myself. I'll settle for "Goldie Locks." Not too far to the left, not too far to the right; just sensibly moderate.

#61 | Posted by MACV1972

Paris Hilton?

Sorry. My mistake. I didn't realize you were that far out there. You know...just a little beyond reason. Had I known you were of the "911 was an inside job" looney tunes, I would not have bothered to respond.

#60 | Posted by MACV1972

Start with Larry Silverstein ` then Mr. Ignorant:>)

"The adults are finally getting back in charge of things."

Kind of a strange thought on a web page that is discussing President-Elect Obama keeping Bush's Secretary of Defense.

But for the most part I agree.