I don’t see where Obama has confessed or backtracking or admitted to any lie. He simply repeated his earlier policy without change. People who are claiming he’s changed his views are following their own beliefs of what was said not what Obama actually said.
This seems to be the equivalent of people condemning Obama as a liar because he keeps refusing to admit he’s a Muslim.
How is the ability of a company to switch to a more cost effective government plan and save money for investment in the company and profit for their shareholders a drawback?
Obama seems to have overestimated the intelligence of a certain portion of the American public - I’m surprised it took this long to happen.
I agree. I think he spoke with a kind of grand vision, as he so often does, and not with the sort of practical precision that I was seeking. But it DID leave an ambiguity, and it needed to be resolved, and he’s done so quite satisfactorily.
If anything this is an indictment of the complete unwillingness to think on the right. They would rather sob, whine and stamp their feet than actually think about what he meant.
But he is their president too, so I’m happy he gave the cliffs notes for those unwilling or unable to understand things said plain.
Felicitations,
Lobohan
I hope he learned to be careful with his words! I heard he once promised his girls that they could get any flavor ice cream they wanted. Next day it was on Fox news that he lied because the store didn’t actually carry every single flavor the kids could think of. Bad Obama!
Having planks in both party’s platforms sure makes for fun reading. On the one hand we have a partisan OP straight from the desk of Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity & Levin absolutely aghast that Obama lied when he didn’t acknowledge hyper-partisan interpretations (to the point of being confused with libertarian/Randian/Laruchian dialogue) of his policies.
On the other hand, we have lots of defenses out there of Bush and his leadership drive to war, also equally pedantic, equally inane, and equally tortured.
I guess the fun of being in the middle is the ability to watch credulity stretch to its breaking point – not being beholden to an ideology allows for a bit more clarity than the Bush=bad/Obama=bad crowd.
Fair enough, you seem far enough removed from the sort of garden variety libertarian. I would still argue that calling taxes and what not levied by a duly elected government of the people force to be a tad hyperbolic. When the SS starts rounding up people in the streets, then we can talk.
Well, in the ultimate analysis, it IS force. If someone won’t pay his tax, it’s taken from him by force. That doesn’t make it illegitimate. By the same token, we use force to punish rapists and murderers; we don’t set them down in jail on the honor system but rather use guards with firearms to prevent their escape. What of it?
I agree with this: at the end of every government policy, from foreign war to ordinances about mowing your lawn, is a gun. It’s obvious in the case of the gun; it’s not so obvious in the case of the lawn. But if I don’t mow my lawn, then escalation happens: first are fines, then if I don’t respond comes the sheriff for eviction, and if I don’t respond to that comes the sheriff for arrest, and if I resist then they lock me up for resisting arrest, and if I successfully fight back against the sheriff, the gun comes out. It’s all backed up by force.
Bricker I appreciate what you’re saying re: the rhetoric. However, I don’t think what he was saying was all that grand: the reading you’re putting on it (that he was promising that employers wouldn’t switch plans on employees) seems really far-fetched to me, so far-fetched that it seems unlikely that such an interpretation would even have occurred to him when he spoke.
Of course no president’s rhetoric should ever be taken literally: that way lies Asperger’s Syndrome. Rather, it’d behoove all of us to try to figure out what the president–and every other speaker or writer on the planet, for that matter–intends to communicate.
What politicians rhetoric can be taken literally?
I’m sure you’re right in thinking that his meaning was obvious to him. But it’s equally obvious that I’m not the only one who questioned his words’ meaning. The Salon.com article linked above (noting that Salon is not exactly a right-wing sympathizer):
The President’s intent was to be persuasive. That’s why it’s appropriate to characterize his words as rhetoric. But in doing so, he left an ambiguity, and that ambiguity helped his position. When that happens, it’s incumbent on the honest rhetor to clarify his remarks. Handling the follow-up questiont he way he did showed he was an honest rhetor; had he dodged or denied the truth about switching, he’d have been outright dishonest. Instead, he clarified his meaning, which strongly suggests he knew what he meant all along.
Well, sure. But a dishonest rhetor will use confusion to his advantage. In contrast to the present case, consider the “Iraq / 9-11” trick of the previous administration. While no one ever directly said, “Iraq was responsible for 9-11,” there was plenty of conflating the two issues in speeches, and it would leave a reasonable listener with the impression that Iraq was involved somehow in 9-11. Now, the initial view is to give the speaker the benefit of the doubt, but when the opportunity arises for clarification, and none is meade, we’re entitled to assume that the speaker intends the confusion, since it benefits him without his having to directly lie.
Woah now. Lets not extend the benefit of the doubt beyond Obama! 
I actually think part of Bush’s image problem was he generally spoke too plainly about these things. Bush admitted outright a lot of things that Obama is couching behind his rhetoric. See torture, wire tapping, military tribunals, enemy combatants, Bagram, habeas corpus, North Korea, Iran, China, etc.
Dear God - if only the Lunatic Right had devoted the same effort to parsing and carping the Bush lies that led us into an illegal war.
I debated with myself on starting a new thread with the following thought, but since it involves trhe President’s rhetoric as well, I’ll just toss it out here as an addendum.
For what it’s worth, in the following case I think the President’s rhetoric is admirable and accurate. In response to a reporter’s question about John McCain’s comments that the President should be tougher on Iran:
He’s right on the money. Elections have consequences. One consequence is that when you win, you get to decide United States foreign policy for the next four years. Undoubtedly McCain’s comments are made in good faith, but equally undoubtedly, he’s not the President. Barack Obama is, and with that office comes the singular, sole responsibility to decide how our country will protect its national interests abroad. He of course can delegate his authority; he cannot delegate his responsibility. And he recognizes that, and makes the point with only the slightest bit of snark. It’s a well-done use of rhetoric.
Great, now I’m not just afraid of fear anymore, but rabid dogs, floods, lightning and so on. Thanks a whole bunch; that’s some helluva way to start my day. 
First off, I find it hard to imagine that John McCain somehow has lost the president’s number. If he has a real solution, I’m sure the president would at least listen to it. After all, McCain is old and worldly about such things.
I don’t think anyone can rightly question McCain’s intent; I’m sure it’s good. His methodology, though, sucks. I have no doubt that President Bush had a pure intent (love of country); he merely lacked the faculty to do something intelligently.
But McCain isn’t making a deal out of this publicly to affect policy; he’s doing it just to do it. And he surely has to realize that it’s irrelevant what he would do because the people spoke and decided that his idea of how things should be done was, um, not as good as Obama’s.
Obama, I think, was polite in his response, but firm in making it clear that McCain is just tilting at windmills and is largely irrelevant now. He’s relevant to the extent that the media still talk to him and he says little idiotic things from time to time that people have to respond to. He’s irrelevant because instead of using his contact with people to influence their decisions by thoughtful, considered discussion, he’s out making an ass of himself. /shrug
I think part of the problem of partisanship is that statements are deconstructed to find what we want someone to say – or to reflect what we think of their character – rather than to understand what the speaker is trying to say. While ostensibly much more eloquent than Bush, Obama basically said “because I’m the decider.”
Look at the various reactions to both statements. Not in this thread, but wasn’t Bush excoriated for basically the same sentiment? To those that thought of him as “our guy,” it was a declarative, strong statement. To others, it was the height of juvenile arrogance. (I am getting my reference correct, aren’t I?) But here roles are reversed, and Obama’s statement is taken much easier.
This is an extremely insightful comment. Although I would point out that I had no problem with Bush’s statement and no problem with Obama’s statement. 
But you’re exactly right. Bush was scorched by the Looney Left and I won’t be surprised if the Rabid Right screams about Obama’s statement. But they’re essentially the same, and undeniably correct. Don’t like it? Mark November 2012 on your calendar and do something about it. Until then, like it or not, he IS the Decider.
I mean, The President. 
Ah, the old False Equivalence fallacy, yet again. A Great Debates staple from the Excusers. Bush lied, so anything that can be construed as meaning Obama lied too lets the construer make such comments as “they’re essentially the same”.
Horsepucky. Consider the context, please. “I’m the decider” meant “It doesn’t matter what anybody else thinks”, an assertion of simple stubborness and closemindedness. The question he was responding to, as you might recall, was about firing Rumsfeld, who he said was “doing a fine job”. (The Decider changed his mind about that not long afterward, as you know).
“Nobody will have to change doctors” meant “Nobody will be required by the government to change doctors”. We agreed on that, right? It was a promise about what principles will guide the plan that none of us has read because it doesn’t exist yet.
How are those equivalent in any *meaningful *way? :dubious:
You’re welcome.