Sorry for what might be an obvious question, but what year do you live in?

Freezing high level staff salaries? He’s probably just going to make it up in bonuses, allowances, etc. in a manner similar to what Clinton did when he “cut the white house staff”. All he did was convert them from employees to contractors so that their pay came out of a different bucket in order to make his budget look better. It actually cost the taxpayers MORE money to do it, but he got to claim that he was doing something so people would praise his cost cutting measures.

Just like Obama is “doing something”. I’m guessing that he wants to make the Clintons produce papers that they’ve been hiding so far in order to have ammunition to use against Hillary in 2008, when she will try to run against him.

If he really wants transparency in government, he wouldn’t have hired a team of lawyers to fight having to do something as simple as producing a copy of his birth certificate to prove that he was eligible to become President. Do you think the white house will release it now? Do you honestly believe that a FOIA request to the white house to prove that he is legally allowed to be in the oval office will actually get you a copy of his birth certificate?

If he had principles, he would stand by them. If he believed in transparency in government, he would exhibit some transparency in his own dealings. Until then- it’s all just talk intended to improve his image and nothing more.

It’s just like how he said it’s so bad that the Gitmo prisoners haven’t had trials, so he suspended the trials. He said that he had talked to Cheney and agreed with him about Gitmo being a complicated subject and that he would take the time to really understand all the situations and ramifications before making any changes regarding the prisoners at Gitmo. That was also just another one of his lies to look good. There’s no way that a day or so spent celebrating was sufficient time, unless you are so closed minded about it that you really don’t care what the reality is.

He reminds me of Bill Clinton in one very important way- he’s a habitual liar, but a whole lot of people believe what he says, just because he’s the one saying it.

http://www.emergentchaos.com/archives/2009/01/change_i_can_believe_in.html

Witness the power of non-principle.

He’s as much white as he is black”

My snarky response to that has always been “so you think he would have gotten to sit in the middle of the bus?” Pedigree isn’t the issue – there was a time when one black great-grandparent would have been enough to keep someone from getting elected dogcatcher. Jon H is dead-on with the cabdriver assessment.

Not to be one of those darn readers ready to leap to the defense of our fearless blogfather, but if Balko is a liberal, then cheers to liberals.

I sit in class with liberals everyday at my college. Three days a week I sit in a mandatory class which consists of communitarian propaganda from the teacher and agreement from the class. I have learned that the social contract exists whether I agree or not. That breaking the law, even the old hippie standby of draft dodging, is not okay. You can just find a new country. Forget not paying taxes as a form of protest!

These are liberals. Balko has expressed occasional and tentative flashes of slight optimism about Obama’s ability to be less completely horrible than Bush or McCain on some issues. Wooooow, what a commie.

Jesus Christ, Balko would be berated as a miserable cynic by my friends and classmates.

Balko also continues to blog about police brutality and the horrors of the drug war, and done great work in helping to get Cory Maye off of death row. Meanwhile, liberals blink stupidly and ask “outrage? drug war?” or cheerfully say that THEY are getting away with their pot smoking, so it’s not really a concern.

I would love to be able to sit in a class with someone as liberal as Radley Balko.

(Forgive the defense instinct here, that’s what comes of making me read Robert Bellah’s “The Good Society” if I want to graduate.)

That’s an interesting point. I would rather live in a somewhat paternalistic European-style social democracy than a deeply authoritarian garrison state. But, I don’t think we necessarily have to choose between the two anymore. Obama has shown a willingness to listen to friends and rivals alike since his days on the Harvard Law Review, so hopefully he’ll be looking for options beyond strengthening large, bureaucratic welfare agencies. Besides, when was the last time you heard a Democrat discuss eliminating ineffective programs?

Times are tough, and the pressure on Obama to go overboard on the economy will be great. As a man of the (non-socialist) Liberal-Left, I may not object as fiercely to some proposals as hardcore libertarians would, but I won’t settle for more of the same either.

I wish we could get to the point when we could have a national discussion about the possibility of a basic income for all, instead of traditional welfare for the poor. People ranging from Martin Luther King to Milton Friedman to Charles Murray have discussed this. If everyone received a dividend (a limited example would be the Alaska Permanent Fund, funded through oil revenues) to pad their income a bit, people would have greater flexibility when looking for satisfying work. Coupled with reduced regulations for entry level positions and small business, this could energize those who now live paycheck to paycheck. It may actually make the issue of unions moot, since workers would not feel forced stick with crappy jobs as much as they do currently. An added bonus: This could break down some of the divide between liberals and libertarians (or the Left and Right flanks of libertarianism).

I’d wait until Obama comes to the end of his presidency before I’d rejoice about this one.

“…Put a freeze on the salaries of top White House aides.”

How long will this freeze last and how much money will it save? Is this symbolic or substantive?

“…Obama’s top priority upon taking office was to institute limits on his own power. That’s something even a cynic like me can celebrate.”

Again, symbolic or substantive? Time will tell.