Would you agree that we should NEVER be for Obama doing anything we'd oppose Bush doing?

[Ken Burch]

Poll question: Would you agree that we should NEVER be for Obama doing anything we'd oppose Bush doing?

Doesn't consistency require that of us?

[Ken Burch]

1. How can saying "it's OK when OUR guy does it" ever be an honorable choice?

Don't worry, this situation hasn't come up yet(although it eventually could with Afghanistan) but I don't want us totally giving up our integrity on something in the future. Can't imagine anything that could actually be worth it.

[pecwae]

2. I remember all the

"anything to win' posts during the primaries and election. Now comes every sort of 'explanation' and 'justification' for things done by this administration that wouldn't be tolerated in another. Hypocrisy is ugly no matter who's displaying it.

Maybe it's just me, but integrity and honesty are important to me in public servants, although rare. For example, D.K. isn't perfect, but IMO he's an anomaly in politics (how he got as far as he has is anomalous in itself).

[MADem]

3. DK is every bit as politically expedient as the next fellow.

He has "modified his position" to make himself more appealing to his constituency--which is something, like it or not, that politicians do.

DK used to be a hard-line "life begins at conception" anti-abortion prolifer. That wasn't selling well in his part of town, so he, over time, flipped on that issue.

I don't, however, think that a politician shifting their view means they don't have "integrity and honesty." Being rigid and immutable on every issue just means that a person doesn't listen to opposing arguments, and may be slow to process new information. None of us are the same person we were decades ago (for those of us who have lived a fairly long time), and that's good. We learn as we age. It's part of the process.

[natrat]

11. um...when that shift occurs between campaign and office it is integrity and honesty,sigh

[MADem]

12. Um....he did it because he had to. If he hadn't been leaned on, he probably would have

stayed right in the Pro-life camp. His "change" was motivated by consequences in the ballot box.

He knew he couldn't even play at running for President as a prolife candidate on a Democratic ticket. This was a case of his changing his stance to suit the national platform.

But that's what politicians do.

They aren't gods, and people who follow them with stars in their eyes, like some people do with DK, will eventually be disappointed.

[treestar]

19. True, and also that they are representing people

In many cases there is nothing wrong with a politician voting against his/her own opinion, if he/she thinks the constituents want it that way. It is up to their judgment once elected.

[Occam Bandage]

15. How does "honor" have anything to do with politics?

Politics is all around the least honorable game anywhere. Representational politics is founded on the idea that politicians will try to do what they need to do in order to save their skin; adding regular referendums on their performances ensure that politicians will conform to the popular will. I mean, if honor actually existed in politics, monarchies would be the best system.

[mkultra]

16. because for those of us who dont trust bush

we think bushes actions and words are a cover for more malicious activity. We don't feel the same way about obama.

[Demeter]

4. We Are (Supposed to be) a Nation of LAWS, NOT MEN

If it's wrong, foolish, illegal, immoral, or fattening, neither Bush nor Obama should be allowed to get away with it.

Well, maybe Obama can do the fattening. He's a bit skinny.

[Buzz Clik]

5. I would agree that most polls on DU are silly.

[stray cat]

6. They could do the same thing and one would be thoughtful and competent and the other a pay off

I trust Obama to be competent when he carries something out and I didn't trust Bush to do anything well. I might trust a great football receiver to carry out a key play that I wouldn't trust a bumbling lazy idiot to do.

[Bonobo]

7. Yes, but I submit that you don't really know WHAT Obama is doing at any given time.

Especially if you are listening to the early media reports on a subject. The mass media is notorious for playing fast and loose with the facts to get a rise. Things are not always what they appear or are portrayed to be.

[mkultra]

17. thats the funny part

they essentially presume his actions, then criticize that presumption.

[Ken Burch]

21. That is always a risk, granted.

This isn't prompted by any one particular thing. It's a general question.

[TexasObserver]

8. No. It matters who is doing the act, whose administration is in charge.

[TwilightZone]

9. Yes, let's ignore context and intent.

Hypothetical example: if Obama asks for funding re: Iraq with the intent of bringing home most of the troops, it's exactly the same as Bush asking for Iraq funding to continue giving contracts to Blackwater.

A ridiculous example, yes, but it's no further out of whack than some of the thinking going on around here. Obama needs to do exactly what I want on every issue or he's out of a job. All military spending should end, even if it's needed to withdraw troops from Iraq.

And, this gem from this morning: "Many of us want our votes back."

[rug]

20. Hypothetical example: The Administration prevents prosecutions for wiretaps and torture.

Where's the nuance?

[flakban]

25. Great example! Here's an informed thread preciesly about it...

How President Obama is endangering the fate of our nation with his inaction and double talk relevant to the Bush crimes:

http://tvnewslies.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13835

[flakban]

26. And also...

Excellent but frightening post:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7013

[kevinds13]

10. I'm for Obama winning reelection...

Does that fit into this?

[Uzybone]

13. of course we shouldn't

do you have any examples of being being for an issue because Obama is doing it vs being against it when Bush did it?

[Occam Bandage]

14. I disagree with "never." I'm fine with Obama winning re-election,

having a high approval rating, pressuring Congress to pass his bills, etc., etc.

[treestar]

18. Depends on what it is

We might have more tolerance for Obama doing something we don't like, because he is going in the right direction overall and know we can't have perfection. With Bush we didn't like his direction and so opposed him on all fronts because that could help stop him. We had no reason to tolerate any differences at all.

Obama however, we want to have stay in office. He's not going to do the egregious things Bush did, because he just isn't that way.

Let's learn how to be the winners rather than staying stuck on being the losers.

[rainbow4321]

22. Even if he were to do the same as chimp, we will know that the WH decisions

are carefully planned and THOUGHT OUT now, with ALL options considered..unlike the last 8 years.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. I oppose Bush's continued citizenship.

So I guess your answer is no.

[polichick]

24. You'd think so, wouldn't you?