As we both know, these bloggers became engaged because they had a very specific purpose…to consolidate power. So it’s not very surprising that many of them would act like this.

I’d urge you to read bloggers like Kevin Drum, Steve Benen, Nate Silver, Brendan Nyhan and even Josh Marshall. They’re far more thoughtful and intellectually honest than their far left blogging brethren.

I still don’t know his opinion on investigating potential crimes of the Bush Administration. I don’t have time to go through old posts.

And your response to Rob: “BTW – If anyone on the Obama Truth Squad is reading this, please be advised that I am in a poistion to prepare lists and help identify many bloggers who have questioned his campaign and should be detained and questioned. No, Rob I am with you on this, standing shoulder to shoulder.”

…as sounding like the lunatic-fringe.

I haven’t been reading Donklephant long enough to know your feelings about the rule of law.

I was not aware that Rob’s question was not serious.

I don’t believe that “so many” will ignore the “unprecedented concentration of power he will wield”. Again, perhaps the lunatic fringe will savor such power. But people like me, you, Todd and many more millions would prefer he give it up.

A Republican majority congress at this juncture would not provide any meaningful opposition. They need to get their S**t together and figure out who they wanna be.

It’s up to us, the people that voted Obama to office, to make sure he

A. Wields his power wisely
B. Gets things back to the way they should be (i.e. were before Bush)

Obama is a constitutional law professor for gosh sakes, I think he understands the idea of a balance of power.

Like Todd says, let’s let him do his job before we cut his legs out from under him.

The current state of our federal government is that there has been/ is no meaningful check on executive power by Congress except when Congress has been under the majority control of the opposite party, as it has for the last two years. Even then, it has been minimal, but what check did exist is now gone, leaving only the supreme court as the last restraint on the executive.

Barack Obama has shown no indication that he has any interest in ceding any of the power that has accreted to the executive ever since he realized he might wield it. In fact, quite the opposite. He voted for the FISA capitulation which, as Glen Greenwald and other constitutional scholars have shown, is a huge expansion of executive power. He was in a position as the presumptive nominee that his voice could have made the difference on that vote. Some on the left even speculated that the reason that Obama voted for it, is that he did not want to constrain his own power. I think it has more to do with Axelrod’s pockets stuffed with AT&T cash, but who knows?

Lunacy is the eye of the beholder. The willingness of so many to ignore the unprecedented concentration of power he will wield without checks from Congress because they like his style or temprament or intellect or comforting words on a pure “trust me, I will only use the ring of power for good” basis strikes me as -well – lunacy.

The post only documents the expectation of Obama’s base. People who have his ear. People who helped him get elected. Some of whom (Krugman?) may even wind up as part of his administration. I find it amusing that you find simply quoting their expectations for Obama with the mildest of criticism to be a “lunatic fringe” post. But then I’ve never drunk the kool-aid for any politician of any party to the degree that I see in Obama supporters today. So I guess I just don’t get it.

I know you’re a fan of divided government … an idea that I share in principle. However, rather than railing against Obama, wouldn’t a more productive wish be to hope that Republicans actually come up with some sort of viable list of ideas (ala 1994) and start mounting a comeback in 2010?

We got a glimpse of Obama’s “style” during the general election. And I may be naive here, but I expect (or hope might be a better word) that many of the bloggers on the left are going to occasionally (and possibly not so occasionally) be upset that the Obama Administration is not going “far enough, or fast enough” in pushing a progressive agenda.

Many of us who voted for him do not necessarily agree with the bloggers you quoted. I personally didn’t vote for Obama because I think I’ll agree with all of his policies.

I voted for him because I admire his intellect, temperment, and decision making skills.

Obama saw what happened when George Bush tried to govern as the President of 51% of the nation. Nothing Obama has said or done so far indicates that he intends to make the same mistakes.

The first 100 days of Obama’s Presidency should be very interesting.

… and you may very well turn out to be right in some of your predictions and worries.

But, for the time being, why assume the worst?

Obama is not George Bush. When he says he wants to (try to) bring us together, until proven otherwise, I see no good reason not to take him at his word.

Todd

p.s. Bringing the nation together will be a two-way street, and to some extent will hinge on what type of opposition party the Republicans choose to become. If the “compromise is bad” crowd continues to rule, they may be able to succeed in making President Obama “look bad” … but the country as a whole will continue to suffer for it.

I don’t have any pre-conceived notions of right and left. Nor was I trying to place you in any such “compartment”.

I was merely pointing out that:

A. Your post and your reply to Rob was very … um … lunatic-fringe

B. You never answered Rob’s question (save for much sarcasm).

Come to think of it, you still haven’t answered the question. Is that the reason for all this?

He’s not even inaugurated yet, so chill.

@mm
I know. I am exhausted.

I’m confused, in your post you’re crying “Obama! Captain Lefty!”. But in your comment about AT&T you’re decrying his lying ways as he bucked the will of Kos and company.

You don’t get to have it both ways.

I think Obama will disappoint the extremes of both parties. That’s why we hired him. Why not let him do his job?

Andrew:

Obviously I agree with your second paragraph. However, while most of the quotes are silly I think Krugman has a point. The Dems made this election about healthcare, the environment, etc. The Repubs tried to play catchup, and when that failed attacked Obama’s character. And America made the choice for the candidate and (hopefully) the party that could do the job. I guess we’ll see about that.

Oh, and Mike:

I agree that the sarcasm is SO VERY TIRESOME.

Of course there are jackass left-wing bloggers (and anyone who spends a whole lot of time blogging is likely an ideological robot anyway) who will say idiotic things like mw posted. But as an independent who just wants to see practicality and common sense prevail, I do have high hopes for Obama. Now, independents like me are cautious, because when, in 2000, Bush said he would be a “uniter, not a divider” he was obviously full of crap – his administration was a prime example of the lock-step ideological nonsense that I hate. Additionally, as a fiscal conservative and social moderate, I was appalled that he ran up the deficit like a teenager with a new credit card and pandered to the anti-science ignorant periphery of the GOP. And unfortunately, John McCain, who I was so primed to vote for back in February, chose to run his campaign divisively and pander to the same ignorant folks who give conservatism a bad name.

So, I’m cautiously optimistic that we will see a change for the better – and given that we are coming off a disastrous 8 years of Bush/Cheney, that’s a little bit of comfort. I’m giving Obama a shot, let’s see what he can do – we can debate his actions as he makes them, and hopefully we can all do so in a way that is in the spirit of this site.

But you are correct, it is not at all clear whether Obama with take the advice of the bloggers and pundits quoted here. I should point out they are, for the most part, main stream Dems (the Kos bloggers could be considered exceptions, but do represent a big part of Obama’s base). If Obama follows his campaign rhetoric, he will disappoint everyone quoted here. If Obama is true to his voting track record, they will be very happy.

I expect that Jim S expects Obama to take the path outlined by these bloggers, as do many who voted for him.

We won’t have to wait long. His best shot for sweeping change is in the first four months of his administration.

Luckily, they are not Obama, so they can’t actually speak for him. I think mw’s jumping the gun a little bit. While things may end up as he’s pointing out, it is by no means a guarantee (either way).

Just doing my part to help bridge the partisan divide.

I am curious however, to see if the Obama administration will criminally investigate AT&T for illegally spying on Americans without a warrant at the request of of the Bush administration. You may recall that when Obama reneged on his promise to fight against immunity for AT&T in the FISA bill, and instead voted to grant immunity to AT&T in the FISA bill, he made a distinction between civil immunity and criminal immunity – implying that he would go after them when he was in office. What do you think he will do, now that we have learned that his campaign coffers, and David Axelrod’s pockets are overflowing with AT&T dollars?

I am not surprised. mw has been nothing but a right wing spin machine for a few months now. This post is fairly typical.

How very un-Donklephant like of you.

Seems no better than the idiots who want to “crush the conservative movement”.

Personally, I think the alleged crimes should be investigated. It’s not a partisan issue, it’s a very base American issue. The rule of law is too important to just shrug off.