Obama Pulls Down Agenda from Transition Website
Over the weekend President-elect Barack Obama scrubbed Change.gov, his transition Web site, deleting most of what had been a massive agenda copied directly from his campaign Web site.
Gone are the promises on how an Obama administration would handle 25 different agenda items - everything from Iraq and immigration to taxes and urban policy - all items laid out on his campaign Web site, http://www.BarackObama.com
.Instead, the official agenda on Change.gov has been boiled down to one vague paragraph proclaiming a plan “to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives.”
“We are currently retooling the Web site,” said Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro.
The site went active on Wednesday and was available to the public Thursday. The agenda items, which were active for at least part of the weekend, appear to have been deleted by late Saturday.
Why is Obama hiding his agenda? Is he abandoning his agenda or does he just not want to disclose all of it at once?
Well it’s obvious. He intends to surrender to the terrorists, kill every baby, take all our guns and convert us into atheist communists.
Posted by scott on November 10, 2008 at 1234 hrs
Now he wants to “responsibly” end the war in Iraq. Well, what the heck does that mean? Eighteen months ago, when he was a tool for the Far Left, Bush-hating machine, he said he would end the war in Iraq. But now, it’s all about ending it responsibly.
I wonder if he’s checked with the post-menopausal hags over at Code Pink to get their input on the definition of “responsibly.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2008 at 1237 hrs
Why is Obama hiding his agenda? Is he abandoning his agenda or does he just not want to disclose all of it at once?
The agenda on the transition website was a mistake. His “people” are internally learning about the “transition” from campaign mode to “we are in power now” mode.
Now that he’s been elected, he’s learned that there is EVERYTHING to lose and nothing to gain by committing to an agenda. A published agenda would give something for people to hold him accountable for.
I predict we’ll see much more of this now that Barack doesn’t need your vote for another 4 years. Now that Barack doesn’t have to be “everything to everyone” we’ll see whats really up his sleeve.
Anyway… stayed tuned for his next announcement to be made shortly after he gets some briefing from the Bush administration proclaiming that
“It appears things are worse than we have been told… (insert dramatic Obama pause here)
“It appears that the current administration has been hiding just how bad our economic situation was… (insert another Obama dramatic pause here)
“and as result of the lies of the Bush administration we are going to have to re-evaluate our election campaign promise that no one who makes less than a quarter-million dollars a year will see a tax increase”and so it will begin
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2008 at 1249 hrs
and so it will begin
And when that does not happen you’ll no doubt publicly admit that you were wrong.
Posted by scott on November 10, 2008 at 1253 hrs
It probably has more to do with campaign finance regulations. The exact same agenda is still up at my.barackobama.com.
And for the record, Obama’s line on withdrawal from Iraq has always been “responsibly” withdrawing. It’s an annoying Nixonian phrase, sure, but he’s been consistent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2008 at 1305 hrs
And when that does not happen you’ll no doubt publicly admit that you were wrong.
Scott, If Barack Obama keeps his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than 250k a year I will be overjoyed to proclaim I was wrong.
Though for the record, coming from a guy like you who has a pattern of making false statements only to latter massage them into something less aggregious OR when you are so wrong you can’t even spin your way out of it, you just vacate the thread permanently… I’m not sure you have any moral authority to demand anything from me or anyone else on here when it comes to being accountable for ones statements.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2008 at 1324 hrs
Stop the presses….....Obama pulled down agenda from transition web site???????.............And how does this affect anything???? Can you honestly say George Bush followed through with is agenda? I suppose if getting us into a war based soley on lies that lead to the death of over 3000 of our sons and daughters, and over seeing an economy that has gone to hell in a hand basket was on his agenda, I guess you’d have to say he was a success. Congradulations to every one who voted for him. You got what you asked for.
I say, let’s give the Obama a chance. He can’t do any worse than George Bush has. He’s going to have one devil of a time cleaning up the mess from the past eight years.
And by the way, I didn’t vote for Obama. But I am an American and believe in giving the president elect a chance. If he doesn’t pan out, well then, we’ll have another election in four years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2008 at 1330 hrs
You do like to cling to your little narratives, don’t you! Look, either show my pattern of “making false statements” and abandoning debates that I have presumably lost—or shut up about it already. I write hundreds of words of comments here—probably more than any other liberal participant. Many of them have been direct exchanges with you. So I’m sure you’ll have no trouble coming up with a few choice examples of what you keep charging me with.
And when you’re wrong about what you said above, I bet you’ll do exactly what you charge me of doing: obfuscating your wrongness with carefully parsed words rather than admit that you were wrong. What will it be? Some convoluted argument abut capital gains taxes affecting our retirement funds? I can hardly wait.
Posted by scott on November 10, 2008 at 1334 hrs
Gee, for someone who didn’t vote for Obama, you sure have the talking points from the Left down pat.
My concern is that Obama will use the “cleaning up the mess from the past eight years” excuse over and over again to explain his inability to deliver on so many of his promises.
I don’t have to give him a chance. I didn’t vote for him. I remember a number of liberals telling me that “dissent was patriotic”. I suppose, under Obama, that will be replaced with “paying taxes is patriotic.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2008 at 1339 hrs
Look, either show my pattern of “making false statements” and abandoning debates that I have presumably lost—or shut up about it already.
Here you go scott:
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/gun_sales_booming/Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2008 at 1345 hrs
Which one of my, what you define as, “Liberal” talking points inaccurate?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2008 at 1347 hrs
Which bit are we supposed to be looking at, x?
Posted by scott on November 10, 2008 at 1347 hrs
Scott, I presume you’ve got 2 eyes and a cerebral cortex behind them. Stop playing dumb and read the f’ing thread.
I left your favorite spoon at home, you’re going to have to feed yourself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2008 at 1350 hrs
My guess is someone jumped the gun and tried padding the site without approval. But for those of you who are convinced a game is afoot, via the wonders of the internet, you can see Google’s cache of the pages; rather than clicking the links, click on the word “cached” just below. Be sure to get your very own screen capture for posterity sake.
spice
Posted by jimspice on November 10, 2008 at 1352 hrs
Well I just reread that entire thread, x. Here’s what I took away from it:
1. I was consistent in my argument throughout. (A rational cost/benefit analysis of keeping a loaded gun for self defense might lead a lot of people to not own such a gun, even if it would lead some to do so.)
2. You started insulting me personally right at the beginning.
3. You charged me—as you’re doing now—with being inconsistent…but could not really point out how, save for a lame reference to my use of the word “kagoddamnjillion.”
4. Both you and Jason seem to dislike me personally so much that you’re incapable of engaging in a reasonable discussion with me.
Frankly, I think you should stop whining about my imagined unfair debate tactics and start trying to engage the ideas.
Posted by scott on November 10, 2008 at 1405 hrs
Here’s a crazy idea from some who’s had to deal w/ GSA (General Services Administration) and getting .gov domains from them, the only source of .gov domains:
Maybe they violated some of the rules that often hamstring a lot of government-employed or government-contracted web designers. Perhaps they’ve got caught using taxpayer-funded resources to pay for political actions. Hell, maybe the site’s got cookies in it to track visitors (likely), which has been forbidden since the Clinton Administration.
They wouldn’t be the first, not certainly will be the last to do this.
He might be President-Elect, but GSA is always going to act like GSA.
Posted by Kevin Binversie on November 10, 2008 at 1419 hrs
Kevin, that IS a crazy idea. It’s obviously some kind of sinister plot to renege on campaign promises and foist radical new policies down our throats. Any other interpretation is crazy talk!
Posted by scott on November 10, 2008 at 1422 hrs
I am not so worried about “the agenda” being pulled from the web site. What does bother me, however, is Joe Biden seems to be photo shopped out of the picture when they were reviewing a parade in Red Square… Fishy!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2008 at 1812 hrs
As someone who voted for GWB I can honestly say he didn’t follow through with his agenda. It changed drastically on 09/11/01.
How long are people going to keep believing the Iraq war based solely on Bush’s lies for Christ sake?
We already know Obama has reversed his position on several agenda items. Why’s he going to change that behavior now?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2008 at 2142 hrs
From the New York Times - 2002….............................
In late 2000, even before the disputed election was settled, Mr. Bush set in motion a strategy of acknowledging the economic problems he would face as president.His running mate, Dick Cheney, started publicly characterizing the economy—correctly, it turned out—as on the brink of recession. Mr. Cheney began making a case that Mr. Bush’s proposed tax cut, which until then had been justified primarily as a way to give the budget surplus back to taxpayers, would ward off an economic downturn that he tied to the Clinton administration.
Mr. Bush and his team have used economic difficulties to press for their policies on taxes, trade, energy and other issues ever since. Having absorbed the lesson of 1992—that it is fatal to appear out of touch with the economic angst of voters—Mr. Bush has continued to address the economy’s problems openly even when things seemed to be improving.
Throughout this year, Mr. Bush said he would not be satisfied with the economy until every American who wanted a job could get one. He sought to tie his popularity as commander in chief directly to his economic plans by asserting that his agenda was directed at providing security of all sorts for the nation.
____________________________________________________________
This ladies and gentlemen was Bushes agenda with the support of the whole of the public that voted for him. How well he did with this agenda is not at dispute. How the general public could be duped is more important. Limbaugh and Hannity heads need to start listening to more than what those tow, and others, preach to the ignorant only to fill their own pockets. If the ignorant didn’t listen, they would change the message. Entertainment is mistaken for reality.Real change by the Republican Party was offered. Change back to what the roots of the Republican Party was. Ron Paul offered that. But the Republican Party, along with the main stream media, didn’t want any other voice heard. They were the first to cry that the “main stream media” was against them. But in reality, they were as guilty as whoring themselves out to the main stream media as the Democrats were. They didn’t want the public to hear from 3rd parties. The Libertarian Party offered true alternative to what the Republican Parties false conservatism.
Real change is not going to happen by either Democrats or Republicans. Real change will come from parties that offer change. It doesn’t matter in the long run if we vote Republican or Democrat. We over the long term get the same results.
If you want smaller government, less taxes, and more individual freedom, the Libertarian Party offers this. But like any party, the start begins with local elections and will grow from there.
Voting just for a party is just plain wrong. You need to vote for real change. I’m sick of people saying they only have a choice between the lesser of two evils. There is more of a choice than the two parties that have only taken us to where we are now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2008 at 2143 hrs
Both you and Jason seem to dislike me personally so much that you’re incapable of engaging in a reasonable discussion with me.
Awwww, pooowr wittle scott can’t read and comprehend with the adults… booo hoooo hooo. He must blame it on the big bad conservwativwes.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2008 at 0058 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 100
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 05:24 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).