Give the man a chance!

It's a little early for I told you so's, and it is a lot early for the liberal outcry against the President - elect. The man has not even taken office and in great numbers liberals are up in arms about his seemingly changes in positions (lies).

It could very well be that he is now seeing the bigger picture. The troop withdraw is now "begin a responsible drawn down plan" once he takes office, and wants to ensure troop withdraw does not ignite "any resurgence in terrorism that could threaten our interests." Granted he campaigned against such words and logic but which is more important; honoring his original words or maintaining national security? You must also understand that going into this he had no plan for national defense and bringing troops home with no solid plan on how to best protect our homeland is just this side of stupid. He now sees this but is challenged with the fulfilling the expectations of supporters that want everything both ways. (Until we are again attacked on our home land. At that point I am sure the tune will change).

He has backed off the tax plan. Liberals that supported this are not so much upset that those who make 250K taxes are not going up, but that their taxes are not going down. I spoke to this "at nauseam". You simply can not decrease the tax of the majority, increase the tax of the upper 5% and expect it to balance (let alone increase revenue). This he knew up front but said it because liberals wanted to hear it. Rather than do the numbers, liberals took his word for it and now they are upset about what should have retained from 8^th grade economics class. But for some odd reason, because it was he who said it; it was believed even though the numbers never supported it. Don't rally against the man. Should he enact it; it would worsen the economy 20% due to the fact tax revenue would actually decrease. Again, you can't have it both ways.

Further upsetting supports is his no motion on making the formations of unions easier. ??? Now that confuses me. I am thinking he took a good look at the American Automotive Manufacturers and realized that unions may not be in our best interests. The big three pay a minimum of 2.3 Billion dollars a year to employees that are currently out of work. Do you think this contributes in any way to their current financial condition? I would lean towards saying yes, just as wold the most liberal of voters if they are being honest with themselves. Unions have their purpose and are best in strong economic times. Problem is when times tighten, unions can bring a corporation to the brink of destruction. Unions are of the most liberal economic concepts. Union reps want employees paid whether they are working or not. A completely different concept to benefits such as pensions and health care. Union expectations and demands have grown to the point of being corrupt. The demand people get paid to be out of work??? (Demand being the key word). It is unreasonable for a business to flourish in difficult economic times paying billions of dollars to people who can not and are contributing to the success of the company. He is wisely sitting silent on this. The next recession (and there will be more to come) will be much worse if more companies are operating in this manner. More companies paying more money to people that are not contributing to their success will only close more business doors. Simple math.

One thing is clear here and it is just I said a few blogs ago; the first to turn on Obama are going to be those who got him elected. The reason for this is that most were band wagon supporters and bought into his momentum and not soundly looking into the issues. Those that wanted more for less and in some cases even nothing.

Before the disenchantment begins, please look at things for what they are. Even consider the fact that though things are not good in the world today, they were not too bad here. Given that, the expected change may not be in the nations best interests. Are troops coming home sooner than later worth future attacks on our soil? Is the next recession worth triple the current unemployment rates and triple the number of failed businesses?

Expectations are being reset. That concept was strongly argued against a month ago (by one person in particular). The root of this is that for once people actually believed a politician to not be a lair. Let's face it. The biggest competition in the free world is to run for President of the United States. Before all else it is that, and anything will be said to bring that to fruition. What has happened here is voters were lazy (to an extent). Though voters did get out, they did not do their homework and figure out what made sense and what did not make sense. (Those that did, did not vote for Obama because they knew his words to not be true). Now we sit here today maybe feeling a bit used but scratching our heads trying to figure out why Mr. So Far Left really isn't. Let me help you with that. It is not that he isn't, it is that he can't be. A pure socialist democrat will run this nation into the Carter era. The world economy is not strong enough and threats against our way of life have to be directly dealt with. The age to have it both ways has long since past. Should he run the office in the manner in which he campaigned, we simply have no future. Our economy would completely collapse while we fend off attack after attack. Granted, many voted for just that - they just did not realize what they were actually voting for.

Be that as it may. Give the man a chance. Allow him to get into office before you start casting your stones and believe in him for what he is. Give him credit for protecting your interest even if it is not the way it was represented to be. Giving it to you the purely liberal way will have no positive benefits in the long run. While he gets started self educate. Understand for yourself why things will and will not work in terms of left sided politics and socialism as it pertains to the world today - then maybe you will realize just how foolish it was casting ballots out of such ignorance.

If you have not taken personal and stopped reading; here is an article.

Liberals voice concerns about Obama

Carol E. Lee, Nia-Malika Henderson Carol E. Lee, Nia-malika Henderson Mon Dec 8, 4:22 am ET

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He's hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he's stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

"He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment," said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: "Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?"

Even supporters make clear they're on the lookout for backsliding. "There's a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him," said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America's Future.

Obama insists he hasn't abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left's bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.

Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won't enact the tax.

Obama's pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he's struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he'll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Obama's post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.

Now Obama's says that on his first day in office he will begin to "design a plan for a responsible drawdown," as he told NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.

The central premise of the left's criticism is direct – don't bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.

"There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet," writes John Aravosis, the editor of workinglife.org. "The president-elect wouldn't be president-elect without labor."

During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The "card check" bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.

"It's complicated," said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. "On the one hand, the guy hasn't even taken office yet so it's a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this."

That's a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it's just too soon to criticize Obama -- and if there's really anything to complain about just yet.

Case in point: One of the Campaign for America's Future blogs commented on Obama's decision not to tax oil companies' windfall profits saying, "Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, 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."

Yet Campaign for America's Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.

"I've heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs," Hickey said. "The old argument was, here's how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies' windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don't."

Obama is asking for patience – saying he's only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.

Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have
dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.

"My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?" Obama said on "Meet the Press." "We don't yet know what the best approach is going to be."

On Iraq, he says he's just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn't ignite "any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests."

Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.

"I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way," Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.

The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.

"He hasn't had a first day in office," said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. "To me it's not as important as who's there, than what kind of policies they carry out."

"These aren't out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is," Isaacs added. "We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments."

Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and "belligerent" toward Iran. "But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I'm willing to cut him some slack," Cole said.

Other voices of the left don't like what they're seeing so far and aren't waiting for more before they speak up.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama's economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy's "best and the brightest" team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.

David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday's Washington Post that he is "not yet reaching for a pitchfork."

But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama's Cabinet appointments so far: "This Wasn't Quite the Change We Envisioned."