Exactealy one month after being elected. That's got to be some kind of record. Breaking campaign promises before you've been sworn in?

well he cannot keep them all, its unrealistic really

"Exactealy" ????

Have you ever heard of spell check!?!?

That should be "exactly", sorry.

"I'm pissed! The only reason I voted for him was his promise to make rich guys cry."

Whoever thought he was going to do EVERYTHING he promised is simply dilusional.

The headline on 23/6 clearly says 'political comedy' - also, if you read the item it says: "Obama's campaign promise to impose a windfall tax on oil companies HAS APPARENTLY been taken off the table."
Why not wait until he's actually president?

Until then, here are a couple of 2004 promises from the White House's current occupant to think about:

"I will restore honor and integrity to the White House" - broken
"Leave no child behind" - broken
"President of all the people, not just those who voted for me" -broken
"A reformer with results" - broken
"It's the people's money, not the government's" - but he gave it away anyway

UnDave that reminds me of Alice in Wonderland the part with the caterpillar...LOL.

OMG - the voting options on 23/6 were hilarious. Thanks for posting! It's great to get a chuckle in these days (I do not mean sarcastically in any way).

And steph - Obama's people went on record about the windfall tax thing. They put it out there, so it's up for grabs for commenting.

"Why not wait until he's actually president?"

Yeah, exactealy.

Jude

Spitzer's article was well written, I liked it.

On windfall profits, don't really care, wasn't especially important to me either way.

I'm happy that he's willing to change his plans according to how conditions are now, not how they were during the campaign. Taking something off the table up front doesn't mean it will never happen. He's prioritizing and adjusting to the situation at hand.

And I love how Huffpo just throws this out there: "it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy. Of course, that frame is debunked by history."

Really? I'd like to see some research on that. They seem awfully sure of themselves.

Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet. I find it so funny that people are SO EXCITED to b*tch about the man, that they literally have to make stuff up, or get excited over things that are non-existant. He doesn't have the power to drop or add programs yet, sillies!

His aide simply said the price of oil has dropped...he didn't say that Obama dropped the idea. Not to mention that policy is usually pretty complex...it is possible to tweak an idea or modify it, or come up with a plan with similar benefits done in a different way. I think people are getting way too worked up when nothing has happened yet.

I guess if all you have to celebrate is little "victories" like this rumor, enjoy.

Fall back haters

off topic, but can I just say how weird it is to look at this story and see his picture as the President? (technically prez-elect)

...I still am in denial sometimes that the 10 year election is over and that this candidate of all people is president.

(sorry, resume calling all politicians liars who no one expects to keep their promises, so in fact, it would be lying if they did keep their promises.)

Thank you Jillness - the President should make decisions based on the current state of the economy and yes the price of oil has dropped hence the idea that the oil companies are not profiting on such a large scale - presumably.

BUT NOTE: HE IS NOT THE FREAKING PRESIDENT YET!

I think it's amusing that the current president appears to have fallen off the radar so completely that Obama's being treated as if he's already taken office

I'm kinda confused by all the 'he's not our President' comments on here.

Obama is not our President, true. But he is in the media and making decisions that are affecting the nation... yet because he isn't President yet we can't talk about it?

I always thought that if it was on the boards, we could weigh in, what's the problem?

I do note that no one brought up Obama's lack of Presidential-ness on the amabassador thread or the thread a couple of weeks ago about funding programs that don't teach abstinence-only. In fact, there was a lot of support and 'this is the change I was expecting' comments.

I am trying not to be inflammatory, but I suppose it is unavoidable so here goes: seems to me that Obama's Presidential when supporters like what they read, but isn't acting as President when supporters don't like what they read.

Jude-

The reason we don't hear about Bush is that he has gone on record stating he will do whatever it takes to make the transition easy for Obama. All Bush's actions from that point have been in complete agreement.

I may be completely off base, but the media does not tend to cover Bush when he is behaving well.

It seemed like a premature abdication to me, Kranky--making the transition easier isn't the same thing as falling off the radar as if already out of office.

As far as the difference between this and the ambassador thing, my understanding is that it's one thing to discuss something which has already happened and is concrete, and speculating about something which was only vaguely brought up by an aide and is not at all a concrete happening.

I don't think I saw the other thread you mentioned (could be wrong, though--I have the memory of a gnat), but it sounds like that was another instance of something more concrete than these current vague speculations.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize that oil companies need all of those horrible profits to sustain business in less profitable times.

Re-checking the ambassador thread shows a lot of people saying this idea makes sense not 'yea he's president he can do what he wants.' Obama can't break a promise that he isn't yet in a position to fulfill. I don't know any Obama supporters who take the intense 'all or nothing' position that people who don't like him claim we do. In August, no one was saying that the U.S. teeters on the edge of a depression, so realistically, his plans have to be altered to suit the situation. I'm sure you'll still be unhappy with him though.

"I may be completely off base, but the media does not tend to cover Bush when he is behaving well."
Anything specific go under reported?

Jude-

Fair enough. I still contend that 1. Bush isn't twiddling his thumbs, just because the media isn't covering him doesn't mean he isn't doing anything, and 2. would you prefer him flying all over the place trying to hammer out a few more things to add to his legacy a la Clinton or working to ease Obama's transition?

We may have the agree to disagree, but my understanding is that Obama has made a fairly concrete decision in terms of the windfall tax. Here's my source so that you know what I am working from:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6143060.html

I honestly can't remember much about the other thread either, something about AIDS funding and abstinence-only... but it was another policy discussion. It was not as concrete as the ambassador thing.

Look, I completely understand that Obama supporters are stoked about his Presidency and are happy when it seems like he is following through on his campaign promises. I just don't think it's fairplay to delineate between Presidential and non-Presidential acts to attack other posters for voicing an opinion about something on the boards.

Ron Paul was saying that the U.S. was teetering on the edge of depression in August.

steph-

No one is attacking Obama here. I am simply pointing out that his supporters are not being evenhanded.

And yes - a lot of people said that Obama's ambassador decision made sense BECAUSE they support his views of foriegn policy - which are vastly different than Bush's.

And actually, I am quite happy with Obama for shelving the windfall tax. Gives me hope.

Based on the Houston Chronicle article you cited, Kranky, if this decision really has been made, then it would have been made based on a reevaluation of a changed situation. So in that case, if it has been decided and is a concrete thing, then it's fine with me.

Oh, sorry. The media is not giving much play to the fact that Bush has told his people to give Obama complete access to all information he desires and to work hard at making his transition smooth.

On that note, I have to sign off.

Night everyone-

Jude-

Glad to know we are on agreement! See, I can say nice things about Obama - I think he made a very wise decision in this case.

Night and thanks for reading...

Perhaps supporters aren't being evenhanded, but it seems obvious that there is a difference between this situation and the ambassador situation.

For starters, during the transition, it's Obama's job to make personnel changes. We couldn't possibly use the argument of "But he's not even president" because this is precisely what he's supposed to be doing.

However, it's pretty hard to break a campaign promise before you even serve part of your term, just by definition. You can't actually make that claim unless he gets 4 years without taxing them right? I mean, it could be off the table for 3 years, and then if the economy improves and oil goes up, he could tax them. I don't believe he said he was going to enact this on Day 1, did he?

In any case, I don't care if he does break this promise or not. Obama is faulty, he'll go back on promises, and make mistakes.

But comparing this to the ambassador post is just a logical fallacy, imo.

Premature abdication, good one.

"The headline on 23/6 clearly says 'political comedy' "

Why don't more people know this?

"I'm happy that he's willing to change his plans according to how conditions are now, not how they were during the campaign. Taking something off the table up front doesn't mean it will never happen. He's prioritizing and adjusting to the situation at hand."

I completely agree.

People will nitpick no matter what, I'm fine with letting them live in their sick, sad little world.

"it's one thing to discuss something which has already happened and is concrete, and speculating about something which was only vaguely brought up by an aide and is not at all a concrete happening."

Exactly. He does have the power now to appoint and remove ambassadors, which is something that is concrete. His policy for oil hasn't even been presented yet, and people are acting as if has been enacted already.

And as I mentioned earlier, the article you posted does not provide support for their assumption. The aide only said that the price of oil has dropped. The aide NEVER said that Obama is throwing away the windfall profits tax idea or keeping it. IMO, the articles from Huffington and Houston Chronicle both jump to conclusions with out anything concrete to back it up. Beware of misleading headlines, folks.

I agree with a lot of the things you said, Pop!

If he were to break that campaign promise, he'll gain a little of my support. Windfall taxes are a stupid idea. Profit margins in the petroleum industry are rougly 9-10%. Blockbuster movies will have profit margins much much higher. Maybe they Columbia Studios should be taxed because Spiderman 3 did better than the oil companies as a percentage.

It's OK to name schools and holidays after him even though he hasn't taken office yet, but we can't make note that it appears he is breaking a campaign promise before taking office? :scratch:

He did win election as the first black president of the U.S., so there's nothing wrong with honoring THAT achievement. To rate his policies or performance as president before his inauguration is premature. Nothing complicated about it at all.

I think exalting a man for his race is a dangerous proposition.

"we can't make note that it appears he is breaking a campaign promise before taking office?"

1.) His administration has not cofirmed that he is changing this policy idea.

2.) He does not have the ability to enact or not enact this policy at this time. So yes, critiquing him for something he doesn't even have the ability to do is premature.

First of all, he isn't President yet.. and second, the price of oil has dropped below "windfall" ranges of profit.

Now..if when he take office if it is over $80.00 a barrel and climbing again...then look to see them jump to put it into place.

Right now there are bigger fish to fry.

"I guess if all you have to celebrate is little "victories" like this rumor, enjoy."

Why does someone talking about the candidate you support have to turn into a personal attack? No one even thought of Jill when posting.

And another:

"People will nitpick no matter what, I'm fine with letting them live in their sick, sad little world."

Because they think differently than me their world is sick, sad and little. Nice.

Still a friendly place around here, I see.

i luv him 3>