Peteej,
True, there is probably not a single president who has kept all his campaign promises but I doubt there is one who has broken so many as Obama. No other president campaigned as vociferously as Obama on the notion of the promise of change.

DaddyFiles...

Your rant is just that...a rant from a bitter Kool-Aid guzzling liberal who only displays his complete ineptitude, arrogance and lack of intelligence when he opens his pie hole. I'll gladly publish your tirade so that everyone can witness for themselves your disregard for facts and truth. Oh, your job is at stake? Giving up your First Amendment right to free speech is a high price to pay for a job. But I digress.

Oh, I didn't know you were a journalist! I'm so sorry I didn't provided you with the reverence you so richly deserve. Being that you are in a position of reporting the facts to the public in an impartial and unbiased manner must provide you with greater insight into the truth than us common folk.

Let me make sure I'm understanding you. You're arguing that Congress and the president were begging CSPAN to cover the healthcare debate and CSPAN said they didn't want to? Why? Because doing so would conflict with their regularly scheduled programming? That they had something else to cover? You understand what CSPAN is, right? They don't do sports, bro. Their ONLY job IS to cover Congressional debates. So now it's that CSPAN didn't want to air the healthcare debate? That's laughable! I'm not going to waste my time proving the flawed nature of your argument other than to say that CSPAN was dieing to air these "debates." Oh, that's right. There weren't any open floor debates as all the bribing (or as libs like to say "deal making") was done behind closed doors with no "bipartisan" involvement and certainly no cameras. How many times did Obama PROMISE that the debates would be aired on CSPAN? At least EIGHT! Oh, he's the president and Congress doesn't have to listen to him, is that what you're trying to say? I'll grant you this president's record of persuasion is less than stellar (i.e. Olympics, campaigning in Mass, Virgina and NJ, negotiations with China, Iran...all abysmal failures) but even a president like Obama can get CSPAN coverage if he really wanted it. If he couldn't keep this promise, perhaps he should've checked the scope of his executive powers BEFORE making the promise 8 TIMES! You don't have a problem with Obama buying up private industries but for some reason you have a problem with him making a call to CSPAN to ask them to cover this important legislation. I'm sure ANY of the other major networks, including FOX, would've been more than happy to accommodate the president's wishes to air the debates.

Obama's entire campaign consisted of the promise of a more open and TRANSPARENT government! Where were you during the campaign? You never heard him say that? You're kidding, right? Perhaps I overstated with the word "complete" but let's not get bogged down with semantics. For example, just take these shady backroom deals where Congressional leaders are being bribed (with taxpayer money) for their vote on the healthcare bill. Even if he promised a little more transparency he would still be an abject failure as this administration is less transparent than perhaps any in history. Would you accept this kind of deal making if it was a Republican president? Yea, right!

Brother, I'm not sure you understand the definition of hypocrisy but it does not mean predicting the outcome of a future event. How do I know what this speech will entail? Just as I know the sun will rise in the east and set in the west: because I've seen it happen a 100 times before.

A broken promise, or a lie, can be committed in one day, one year, one term. If he promised that he wouldn't hire lobbyists, for example, and he hires a lobbyist, he broke that promise be it on the first day of his term or his last. So, the one-year argument you whine about does not apply to the lies I listed. I did not list issues the outcome of which we do not yet know, like the closing of Gitmo or the promise of reducing the deficit in half (which, since he more than quadrupled it, shouldn't be too difficult, even for him). The lies I listed are the ones that have already been broken. Even he admitted to Diane Sawyer that they lost many more jobs (in the neighborhood of 7 million) than they created and/or saved (which I'm not really sure how you calculate a "saved" job). (cont.)

(cont.)

It's obvious you missed the point of my post. I never said Obama didn't make everything better (even though he promised he would). I made a carefully constructed list of very specific promises that he broke. I asked readers, more specifically Obama supporters, if they could justify these lies. They are lies. Spin it anyway you want, or answer a question that was never asked, but they are lies. LIES. And you not only accept the excuses, you make up a few (however misguided or inaccurate they are) of your own. This is what I find more frustrating than anything else. Admit the man lied and move on. Is that so difficult?

You never answered it directly but I can assume from your response that you'd be one of those dads who would praise his son if he lied. Got it...one for praising a liar!

I just want to get this straight:

I write an article about the disappointing state of affairs in our country and how Obama (“One Big Ass Mistake, America”) has continually gone back on his promises and lied, repeatedly.

My post was to provoke the thought about how we, as fathers, would treat a similar situation in our households with our own children if they lied repeatedly.

Would you continue to make excuses for their transgressions? Would you continue to believe their promises?

That’s it. No more, no less. I was curious to find out why, or if, we hold our current leadership to a different level of expectations than those we are trying to mold into productive members of our society---namely, our children. How would we handle lying on the literal home front vs. the political home front?

So, out of respect for Daddyfiles’ private request, I did NOT publish his political tirade against me (which contained personal attacks a plenty) but I did want to outline some details about his general argument. It appears that my last line is what has upset Daddyfiles and to which some seem to be up in arms about.

Here is what I said:

“You never answered it directly but I can assume from your response that you'd be one of those dads who would praise his son IF he lied.” (Emphasis added.)

I did NOT call his son any names, nor did I insult anyone’s parenting choices. I just concluded that from his acceptance of Obama’s propensity for lying to the nation, he would also share the same tolerance IF his son had lied. Many parents do not find lying reprehensible; there are many who also make excuses for their children. There are parents who they themselves defend their own lies, and those of their children, as “white lies.”

I am curious to know from all of you if you find Daddyfiles response to me as reprehensible as you find my post:

Here are some direct quotes from Daddyfiles.

“All you did was showing what a classless, spineless little prick you are.”

“You're a fucking asshole and you have shit for brains. Seriously, fuck you. Who the hell do you think you are?? We're in the middle of a political discussion and you attempt to bring my parenting into question??”

(*Please note that my post WAS ENTIRELY about the parallels of politics and parenting)

“Not only doesn't it make sense, it makes you look like an even bigger arrogant prick than everyone here already thinks you are.”

“But when you call my role as a dad into question you go too far, not to mention you're dead wrong. That'd be like me saying your kids will obviously be raised as Nazi, hate-spewing, war-mongering deviants.”

“However, unlike your classless self, I'd never resort to personal attacks on any father here simply because their political beliefs differ from mine.”

This last line of his is ripe with poetry. Does anyone else see the irony in his attempt to gain a moral high ground by asserting the things he would NEVER do but then goes on to do those exact things he condemns?

“Think about it you ignorant jackass. You just attacked my parenting because I don't agree with you about President Obama. If you want to know what's wrong with this country right now, TAKE A LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR DIPSHIT!”

I’d like to know if the above comments from Daddyfiles are appropriate and commensurate with the statement I made, “You never answered it directly but I can assume from your response that you'd be one of those dads who would praise his son IF he lied.” Is this acceptable?

Oh, and by the way I’m Jewish. My father-in-law is also a Holocaust survivor so raising my children as Nazis would be quite a feat, don’t you think?

Daddyfiles, I didn't re-post your comment. How would I (with your avatar)? I do recall you asking Joeprah why your comments weren't published. You might want to ask him. Maybe he misinterpreted your inquiry as to why your comment wasn't published as you wanting your comment to be published??? But of course, I am only speculating.

Eyesofbabes,

I don't have much time to go into too much detail but here are the facts. I realize it's probably a waste of time but in any case...

1. Obama took more than THREE days to respond to the Christmas terror attack and when he did have to respond, he did so reluctantly as it was interrupting his vacation. This after members of his admin went on the record trying to assure us that the system "worked fine." Feel free to shoot a direct quote but I recall him saying that this was a failure with the bureaucracy, the one for which he is responsible. Kind of different than taking responsibility for the act itself. However, more egregious than his response (or lack thereof) is his mirandizing of enemy combatants. Interestingly enough, neither HLS, TSA, FBI or the CIA knew of this action. The only department that knew the terrorist would receive the AMERICAN CITIZEN RIGHT of habeas corpus? The Justice Department. Since when is dealing with terrorists a criminal justice issue and not a homeland security, ? Oh, that's right, when Clinton was in office. Again, I don't have time to go in how deep this goes but feel free to Google it yourself.

2. Please remember that Congress was controlled by the Dems after the '06 midterm elections. If you're going to say that Obama inherited all of Bush's mess then the same line of logic can be used to argue that Bush inherited all of Clinton's mess, namely, 911, which happened, not 1 YEAR but 9 months after he was inaugurated. Obama has the White House, an overwhelming majority in Congress (including a filibuster-proof Super Majority in the Senate) and a sympathetic supreme court. In politics, that's called a 'magic wand."

3. All of that "transparency" is window dressing. I'd like to see the "debates" that took place on the reform bill that will impact 1/6 of our economy. Where's that transparency? And really, being transparent is like pregnant: you either are or you are not. Just like you can't be half pregnant, you can't be half transparent.

4. How many GOP senators were in those backroom meetings? How many of them received illegal bribes with taxpayer money to buy their votes? Were they not invited because they weren't, as you contend, willing to play ball? The GOP has issued an alternative to many of the bills going through the Democratic-controlled Congress. A significant one is with respect to healthcare. It addresses the "competition" clause by opening up competition between states. Greater competition will mean better prices. But you don't hear about that, do you?

Please show me that poll that demonstrates that people are against this healtcare bill because it doesn't go far enough. You must understand that the majority of U.S. voters are right-of center, not, as many liberals will content, left of center. That's just a simple but incontrovertible fact. But you're saying that hardcore blue states like NJ, VA and most recently MASS (and remember, MASS already has a "universal" healthcare program so if they're so happy with it, why'd they vote for a guy who is going to vote against it?), voted out big-government proponents because they didn't go far enough so they actually voted for people who ran on smaller-government platforms? Huh? Scott Brown ran exclusively on being the one vote to STOP Obamacare. So all these people, upset that these liberals weren't going far enough actually rewarded the GOP by voting them in? As if that was going to get them closer to their utopia? I guess you feel the 1994 midterm election, after the Clinton attempt to reform healthcare failed, the public rewarded the "obstructionist" party (i.e. the GOP) by voting in their Congressional majority, and in the House for the first time since '52? OOOOOOOK. Interesting logic there. This is the same argument I hear when government oversight on private industry fails: we didn't have ENOUGH oversight. That's like saying "I added gasoline to the fire, it didn't put it out, so I added MORE gasoline."

Fact is, liberal candidates are losing entrenched Democratic districts and states NOT, as you contend, because government hasn't gone far enough; it's because government has gone too far. Government never creates wealth or jobs; that's all done in the private sector. Any "job" that the government "creates" is done how? How is a government employee paid? Through supply, demand and profit? Nooooo. Through tax dollars. And how are tax dollars created? Through the private sector's profit. Don't forget that.

I'd really encourage you to read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg if you'd like a more comprehensive look at liberal/conservative philosophies and their roots.