Slashdot Mirror

Obamacare is a bit of a weak plan, but that's because it's based on the Mitt Romney reform, which was promoted by the Heritage Foundation.

It's clear by now that Obama is best considered a moderate conservative. On the legislative side, his initial proposals have been quite middle-of-the-road, and then rendered more conservative in order to get the votes of "centrists" necessary for passage. If he was a liberal, then he would have opened his negotiation with liberal policies. He wouldn't have deliberately excluded single-payer advocates from discussions about health care reform. He wouldn't have appointed Alan Simpson ("We've reached a point where [Social Security is] like a milk cow with 310 million tits!") to the deficit panel.

Politifact is your pal. Glenn "Pants on Fire" Beck's, not so much.

It's actually difficult to say how many people who make $250k are what we normally consider small business owners. Do you consider a doctor or lawyer running their own office a small business owner? They would be categorized the same on their tax forms if they made a S corporation (which is common).

In addition, even if the Bush tax cuts are repealed it would have little effect on small business owners. For more information, see:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/27/stephen-hayes/so-called-wealthy-are-actually-small-business-owne/

If there's a war in Mexico, then we should be giving shelter and asylum to refugees trying to escape it.

I don't think you did a good job of self-censoring. Furthermore, I don't really know how you'd "close the border" without harming a lot of people who aren't a threat to your home, self or country. Mexico -- or at least parts of it -- looks like a hell hole to me at the moment, so it seems pretty reasonable and rational to flee to the United States. I think only the most unreasonable of people would object to a individual or nation acting in genuine self-defense, but to the ethical risking the lives of non-threatening people is still reckless endangerment and killing them is, minimally, manslaughter

Could you back up your murder and kidnapping statement? Just looking at the FBI murder figures for 2009 for cities over 100,000 population, Phoenix has a murder rate of about 8 murders per 100,000 capita per year. DC's murder rate is 3 times that.

Wikipedia has a page for the 2008 data. New Orleans tops the list (as it does in the 2009 data at 52 -- there seems to have been a significant drop in murder rate in 2009). Phoenix looks to about 28th on that list with a about 11 murders per 100,000 in 2008 -- less than a sixth of New Orleans's rate and about a third DC's.

Kidnapping seems like it's a lot harder to quantify because cases of missing persons are not necessarily kidnapping. This is the best discussion on kidnapping I could find in about 15 minutes of searching. It gives further support to the idea that Mexico is a hell hole at the moment, as well

.--sabre86

He did, and the St. Petersburg Times' "Truth-O-Meter" which tracks his promises currently rates it as "in the works". Given that the last update on this one's from January, I personally think it should at least be "stalled", but it's not rated as "promise broken" just yet.

That said, yeah, he really should make that one a priority. And perhaps it is our own fault that it is, because when he got elected, we got complacent and didn't talk about it anymore, figuring it'd be closed soon, anyway. So it slipped from the political radar, and attention was turned towards more hotly-contested issues.

Let's go and make some noise.

He did, and the St. Petersburg Times' "Truth-O-Meter" which tracks his promises currently rates it as "in the works". Given that the last update on this one's from January, I personally think it should at least be "stalled", but it's not rated as "promise broken" just yet.

That said, yeah, he really should make that one a priority. And perhaps it is our own fault that it is, because when he got elected, we got complacent and didn't talk about it anymore, figuring it'd be closed soon, anyway. So it slipped from the political radar, and attention was turned towards more hotly-contested issues.

Let's go and make some noise.

I don't know. It's hard to reconcile the images of Obama being a toothless victim that can't push policies through, and yet retaining a lot of the ridiculous executive powers bush pushed through. Gitmo was born through an executive declaration, and could end with one too. And there is no opposition that would account for the disparity between his promises of more transparency, and the reality of denying more FOIA requests than Bush did. He seems to be doing moderately OK on his campaign promises, but he still hasn't gotten around to half of them... and they're a big half.

JFK died before he could be accountable for getting us stuck in Vietnam. He was a great leader, don't get me wrong, but he's lionized by history out of proportion. Also, could you imagine what would happen if Obama had a public affair with, say, Lady Gaga? JFK got away with a *lot*.

Prove any of my points wrong. I dare you.

OK, I'll bite.

People were pissed because she was phoning it in with text book answers to text book questions, after having called Supreme Court nomination hearings a pointless joke.

So you're saying she was half-assing her response to half-assed questions that, in context, have nothing to do with "truly" being on the Supreme Court? What's wrong with that?

People were pissed because despite the fact that in the hearings she was asked about her opinions on important matters, she made a joke of the process and never answered them.

Wait...I thought people didn't want her to judge based on opinions. If you don't want her to judge based on her opinion, why does it matter what her opinion is? I'm still surprised that people weren't happy that many of her answers were textbook answers. Textbook answers are the exact opposite of bringing your opinion into your actions.

People were pissed because we know for a fact that this woman hates the first amendment

Fact, eh? A fact means there is proof. Where is your proof, beyond your opinion?

and has no qualms about doing things outside of her legal power that suit her political views, such as banning the ROTC from her campus but still taking in that sweet, sweet, government money.

First off, they weren't banned from the campus, just the career office. Secondly, while I agree that she went about it the wrong way, let's ignore the law for a moment and look at this issue through reality glasses: it's a freakin' law school, filled with people that either got scholarships or live a life of privilege through rich families. Just how much successful recruiting do you think the military would do in a place like that? That being said, her reasons (at least those that she publicly voiced) seem fair to me:

"I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy. The importance of the military to our society -- and the extraordinary service that members of the military provide to all the rest of us -- makes this discrimination more, not less, repugnant. The military's policy deprives many men and women of courage and character from having the opportunity to serve their country in the greatest way possible. This is a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order. And it is a wrong that tears at the fabric of our own community, because some of our members cannot, while others can, devote their professional careers to their country."

She didn't feel the military had a place at the career office because they essentially discriminated against an entire group of people...discrimination that, I'd like to point out, would be illegal in a private company.

The woman is a liberal troll.

Tell me...is your knee bothering you?

The last appointment Obama put up is a sexist and a racist. But at least she's shown that she can keep it under control when doing her job. (Or at least as well as the other sexists, racists, trolls, etc. on the bench - both conservative and liberal.)

How do you figure? Have you talked to her personally? Have you seen her attending clan rallies? Have you seen her saying men are useless?

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court is a fucking joke. When one of the fossilized fucks shuffles off the bench, it's an opportunity for some sanity to be injected into our lives. But that never fucking happens.

I wouldn't go so far as to call the Supreme Court a joke, but I agree with the rest of that statement. Every time there is a nomination, if the nominee has the same letter after their name as a politician, they are the most perfect candidate. If they have a different letter, they are worthless and will destroy the court...reality be damned.

To reiterate the point that politifact is far from non-partisan consider these two rankings:

Trent Franks is ranked false for being about half off on his number because they disagree with his position.

On the other hand Jim McDermott is also half off on his number but they agree with his position so they give him half true.

To reiterate the point that politifact is far from non-partisan consider these two rankings:

Trent Franks is ranked false for being about half off on his number because they disagree with his position.

On the other hand Jim McDermott is also half off on his number but they agree with his position so they give him half true.

Hate to reply to my own post, but some dummy will ask for sources instead of using google to expand their consciousness.

• Obama's Campaign Promises
• Obama's Political Statements
• Sarah Palin's Political Statements

Hate to reply to my own post, but some dummy will ask for sources instead of using google to expand their consciousness.

• Obama's Campaign Promises
• Obama's Political Statements
• Sarah Palin's Political Statements

Hate to reply to my own post, but some dummy will ask for sources instead of using google to expand their consciousness.

• Obama's Campaign Promises
• Obama's Political Statements
• Sarah Palin's Political Statements

Obama will catch flack because it snows next winter Obama will catch flack because it rains

Hardly. Obama is catching flack for continuing SO MANY of Bush's fucked-up politicies, including vast problems with civil rights. Things that he was elected specifically to FIX. I campaigned for him, donated the max I could to his campaign, etc, but I consider him a total traitor to the vast majority of what he promised during his campaign.

At least with Bush, as a Republican, you KNEW he was going to screw over everyone but the wealthy.

I wouldn't consider him to be reneging on the "vast majority" or even a majority of what he promised. Yeah, he's done it on a few important things and pissed me off several times, but in the grand scheme of things, he's keeping about as many of his promises as he can. Having a Democratic congress isn't an easy thing to deal with. Republicans don't really have any moderates in their ranks to deal with, so they march in lock-step. Democrats have all sorts of factions that they have to herd to get something passed. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

Holy shit you are an angry little man. You are practically screaming. You have really cracked me up in this thread with your gift for complete self-unawareness.

PS - the reason I cited just one counter example is because you wrote that "the things he might be able to do by himself have long gone by the wayside," all it takes is one counter example to disprove that assertion. But if you can't actually write what you mean, I suggest reading politifact where they track the status of Obama's campaign promises on the front page - so far he's kept about 120 of them.

No no no, all those things you just mentioned are still lies, designed to cover up the REAL truth... that Obama wants to mandate circumcision

Pull numbers out of your nether region much?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/02/mark-critz/critz-touts-democratic-role-low-taxes-job-creation/

The Tax Foundation, an independent tax-research group in Washington, has found that the average taxpayer's combined tax burden accounted for 26.6 percent of income in 2009 and 26.9 percent in 2010, the lowest since 1965. And according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, total federal tax receipts were 14.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2009, the lowest percentage since 1950.

I bolded combined so you wouldn't come back and go "but that doesn't include state and local taxes!!11"

Fortunately, there's a politically-neutral website tracking this for you, in case you forget things.

The Obameter currently stands at:

118 promises kept;
36 compromises;
19 promises broken;
82 stalled;
247 in the works; and
3 unrated.

So, yes, I think there are some he has kept, along with some of every other sort.

This administration has been terrible. All this promise, and then failure.

That may be a small amount of hyperbole. The Obameter rates Obama still as having fulfilled more of his campaign promise than those he's broken or stalled on. Which isn't to say that "coming through on half the things you promise" is good enough (nor are all promises created equal), but I wouldn't call it failure.

Just sayin.

Barry is far from perfect (I come at him from the left all the damn time) but to characterize his presidency so far in such a way is...let's go with inaccurate.

Yes. PolitiFact has what they call an Obamameter, which tracks promises Obama made while campaigning. I realize it's fun to point to specific things you don't like and say that Obama has kept no promises, but that's dishonest.

You can argue that on some large issues, Obama has backtracked (such as his apparent desire to continue the ridiculous power grab of the executive during the Bush administration), but don't lie and say Obama has kept no promises. You look better (at least to those who don't already agree with you) if you're willing to be reasonable.

Disclaimers should not be necessary for posts like this, but since irrationality always pops up on political threads:
I voted for Obama in 2008, but only because I wanted McCain to be crushed after his ridiculous choice of VP candidate.
I will vote for Obama in 2012 only if the Republicans put a Palin-like character on the ticket. I've been unhappy with some of Obama's decisions.
I am not a Democratic/Obama apologist. To the people who believe that if you approve of anything a politician does, you approve of everything he does, you need to do a better job of understanding how the world works.

No wharrgarbl like political wharrgarbl, amirite?

Read this.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Their analysis of warrantless wiretapping makes it clear that they have a skewed perspective. They rate it as stalled when their analysis states that congress wants to pass new laws limiting the executives power to spy on Americans but the White House is fighting against them.

No wharrgarbl like political wharrgarbl, amirite? Read this. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Which taxes are increasing in the US, exactly? The economic stimulus involved hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts .

remember obama's campaign and how he floated on $5 donations as opposed to clinton and won.

Not so much:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/22/barack-obama/obama-campaign-financed-large-donors-too/

He's worked on open government. And he did seriously everything you could ask of him on the healthcare bill. He's done OK overall at making the change he promised happen. GITMO obviously isn't closed which sucks but he is still working on it at least, originally he got shot down by the senate when he tried to shut it down. Anyways, the options were Obama who has shown some progress in the right direction or McCain who promised to keep things the same or go in the wrong direction. I'm not sure how that would have been better... I know it is a a bit of "I voted for Kodos" moment. But you have a two party system in the States, what do you expect.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

You probably bought into the propaganda for this guy...sorry! You probably thought this government was to be, as his campaign touted "Open and Honest", but clearly neither is true. I can't find a single promise kept.

Try Here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

It's not a very good record, but it could be much worse. The problem is that he didn't keep lots of very important promisses. (A simple count doesn't tell you the whole story.) And lots of the ones he did keep are saved by keeping exactly what he said rather than what people interpreted him as meaning.

Well, he's better than Bush. Praise doesn't come much fainter, but I guess it's still praise.

OTOH, anyone who noticed that he voted for FISA and still believed his campaign promises is really beyond help.

Also tends to break his promises. A lot.

*BUZZ* Thanks for playing.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

* Promise Kept 110
* Compromise 34
* Promise Broken 19
* Stalled 83
* In the Works 255
* Not yet rated 3

You're right, he did surround himself with a lot of former intellectual property "advocates". It's disappointing.

On the other hand, he's had an amazing first year.

Unless you carefully restrict your definition of "online" to rule out any online publication owned or operated by a company which also happens to have non-online ventures, this doesn't hold up: Politifact, a political fact-checking site, won a Pulitzer last year for fact-checking the 2008 US federal election campaigns. Maybe you can make the argument that, because it's operated by a company which also prints papers, it's not really "online", but given that the whole operation was on the Web (and utterly dependent on the Web to work) I'd have a hard time accepting that.

At least the Census numbers are close. They jive pretty well with the H&HS's survey, performed over the phone at regular intervals. 40 mil's closer than the other side's 15 mil at least.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/18/barack-obama/number-those-without-health-insurance-about-46-mil/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/21/orrin-hatch/who-are-uninsured-hatchs-take/

You know, I don't think this is the first time you've trotted out how wholly inaccurate that 42 mil number is either.

Oh, and the best part?
I don't trust these GAO piracy numbers. They are biased, nonscientific, and inflated. But sadly they'll problably be quoted by politicians during the election, in order to justify why the ACTA Treaty needs to be passed.

The GAO was studying the studies, and in an even bigger revelation, GAO agrees with you!

FTFA: "Three widely cited U.S. government estimates of economic losses resulting from counterfeiting cannot be substantiated due to the absence of underlying studies," the GAO said. "Each method (of measuring) has limitations, and most experts observed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts."

None of those studies put out were from the GAO, instead they were cited as coming from the FBI, CBP and FTC. GAO actually called them and asked for the report. All three came back saying, "what report?"

So we have a government entity saying these piracy reports are wildly inaccurate. They did something right. Is your mind blown yet?

At least the Census numbers are close. They jive pretty well with the H&HS's survey, performed over the phone at regular intervals. 40 mil's closer than the other side's 15 mil at least.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/18/barack-obama/number-those-without-health-insurance-about-46-mil/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/21/orrin-hatch/who-are-uninsured-hatchs-take/

You know, I don't think this is the first time you've trotted out how wholly inaccurate that 42 mil number is either.

Oh, and the best part?
I don't trust these GAO piracy numbers. They are biased, nonscientific, and inflated. But sadly they'll problably be quoted by politicians during the election, in order to justify why the ACTA Treaty needs to be passed.

The GAO was studying the studies, and in an even bigger revelation, GAO agrees with you!

FTFA: "Three widely cited U.S. government estimates of economic losses resulting from counterfeiting cannot be substantiated due to the absence of underlying studies," the GAO said. "Each method (of measuring) has limitations, and most experts observed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts."

None of those studies put out were from the GAO, instead they were cited as coming from the FBI, CBP and FTC. GAO actually called them and asked for the report. All three came back saying, "what report?"

So we have a government entity saying these piracy reports are wildly inaccurate. They did something right. Is your mind blown yet?

This is Slashdot, and if you want to state a blunt political opinion, you're going to have to take the heat from moderation, and not necessarily in moderation.

I was, for quite a while, just one mod shy of being modded Troll, merely by pointing out that Obama is no different than other politicians in that he's made a lot of promises which he hasn't all kept. And I even am fairly satisfied over his overall performance, personally (being the cynic I am).

BTW, an AC who replied to me sent an interesting link

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

but I haven't managed to look through it that much...

John Holdren was worried about overpopulation (in a book from 1977, mind you), yes. And the very next sentence from that book is this:

Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.

But you'd never quote the whole thing, would you? That just wouldn't work for your agenda.

In response to the comments from Beck and others, Holdren's office issued this statement: "The quotations used to suggest that Dr. Holdren supports coercive approaches to limiting population growth were taken from a 1977 college textbook on environmental science and policy, of which he was the third author. The quoted material was from a section of the book that described different possible approaches to limiting population growth and then concluded that the authors’ own preference was to employ the noncoercive approaches before the environmental and social impacts of overpopulation led desperate societies to employ coercive ones. Dr. Holdren has never been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive means of population limitation."

Holdren's office also provided a statement from Annie and Paul Ehrlich, the co-authors: "We have been shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren in blog posts based on misreadings of our jointly-authored 1000-page 1977 textbook, ECOSCIENCE. We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described — but not recommended — in the book's 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator."

Under questioning by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he "no longer thinks it's productive to focus on optimum population for the United States. ... I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have for years been calling 'sustainable prosperity.'"

You really can't do any better than taking sentences from a 70s textbook out of context?

I've found a good way of dealing with the numbers politicans spew out is to take both sides and average it out...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/21/orrin-hatch/who-are-uninsured-hatchs-take/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/18/barack-obama/number-those-without-health-insurance-about-46-mil/

Hey, look, reality is actually in the middle. Go fig.

I've found a good way of dealing with the numbers politicans spew out is to take both sides and average it out...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/21/orrin-hatch/who-are-uninsured-hatchs-take/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/18/barack-obama/number-those-without-health-insurance-about-46-mil/

Hey, look, reality is actually in the middle. Go fig.

Well, there is this site: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/. Of course, that's more promises than lies, and a lot of the promises he's supposedly broken are things he tried to achieve but failed. Nor does it really do much to compare him to other presiedents.

I guess I would ask, what has he lied about? He certainly hasn't created a fraudulent war. He hasn't lied under oathe. He never worked for the CIA. No Iran-Contra or Watergate here. Again you're left saying he made campaign promises, many of which he tried to keep but exterior conditions did not permit it. And even these he's generally moving in the right direction on.

Frankly, I used to say Obama is one of the top 10 presidents we've ever had. Now, I've changed my tune. He's pretty obviously one of the 5 best presidents we've ever had. We're talking that level of historic leadership. Heading up a country under perpetual culture war, with a trashed economy, fighting two wars...this has been a clinic he's putting on how to lead.

But its popular to bash Obama. I'm not saying you're doing so, but the right wing hate machine has gained traction. That's why they do it. They know if they shout 1+1=3, people will cave and believe it, regardless of any objective truth.

Yeah, that sounded like what they would say about themselves.

You didn't address his assertion about who founded it...which sounds believable. And which, if true, casts doubt on a lot of their self-characterizations.

As for his "I couldn't find a thing about what they were actually about", I'm not sure that waffling is what you want me to think they're about, but if that's what you want, ok.

FWIW the PolitiFact site ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ ) now says that Obama has kept 96 out of the over 500 campaign promises they track. They break it down into more detail, and I don't always agree with them as to what constitutes keeping a promise. If you're interested you might check it out.

You show me a promise, I'll tell you how it was broken.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/15/karl-rove/rove-claims-obama-has-already-run-more-debt-bush-d/

It's a misquote of Karl Rove(although the original quote was worded to be misleading in this way anyway). He's mixing up debt and deficit.

Here is a great site that tracks the more then 500 promises that Obama made during the campaign. While obviously breaking some promises are a bigger deal then others, it's the only place that I have seen that it pretty subjective on the matter.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

You don't need to believe what any news the media "filters".

A lot

Its funny to answer the question of what has he done (while mentioning media filters) you refer to a media filter. In fact, you used the same filter for all you rebuttles. But then, I guess they have the word fact in their url so it is probably a good source.

However he did provide a transparency mechanism to see who is a lobbyist in his administration and has fewer of them than any president in modern times. It's not perfect, nor arguably even good enough, but it is better.

Actually I read an opinion piece just yesterday that said lobbyists have simply stopped registering as such. So 'worse' might also make an adequate description.

How did that stimulus bill work out for the middle class and poor of the country?

The Senate.

So with a super-majority and the most powerful office that his party can offer, he still failed to accomplish that goal.

If not under these, then under what circumstances would it even be possible to accomplish what he promised?

And that being said, if we're ruling this impossible, then isn't the most logical conclusion that he simply lied about it? Or was it just a logical failure on his part?

What do you attribute it to? And again, how is it even possible to say those words honestly?

How did that stimulus bill work out for the middle class and poor of the country?

Don't know yet.

Obama claims to know. He said in his State of the Union. You should watch it.

I do disagree with him, and I also see how he failed to match what he promised there as well. We were supposed to stay below eight percent. When that didn't happen, Obama blamed Bush. He never once implied that his plan may not have worked as well as he thought.

Why is that?

He's president, not a dictator and he can't enforce a lot of the policies he wants to change. I think he can take a more active role and influence things better than he is now, and his State of the Union seemed to indicate this. I wonder if he has the force of personality to get a lot of it done.

Of course there are some things he's back pedaled on that give me no end of frustration, but those are mostly Liberal issues that, frankly, he probably never had the power to do.

This seems quite unfair to me. He won votes under "Hope" and "Change" and delivered neither. Supporters claim it was okay because it wasn't really possible anyway. You guys are moving the goal posts for him. You would never do that for anyone else. With all the underlying racial issues at play, I'm somewhat disgusted that he gets an easier time of it than a white male would.

Lets see now. Who filled their cabinet posts with lobbyist after vowing not to?

Yes, he broke his promise on not allowing lobbyists in his administration.

However he did provide a transparency mechanism to see who is a lobbyist in his administration and has fewer of them than any president in modern times. It's not perfect, nor arguably even good enough, but it is better.

Who campaigned with the transparency pledge then developed a health care plan behind closed doors and limited examination of the bill to 72 hours before the vote??

The Senate.

How did that stimulus bill work out for the middle class and poor of the country?

Don't know yet.

What has this guy done to help this country? You don't need to believe what any news the media "filters".

A lot. It's easy to argue he hasn't done enough. I tend to agree, more on quality than quantity though. He's been relatively prolific, although I'd rather he focus solidly on some of the big issues rather than the hands off approach he's taken to them so far.

Listen to the mans own words and match what he says and what he does for yourself. They don't add up. What gives you reason to believe this or anything else he says? If he has a plan, why not present it now? Learn from the past. The spin you need to watch out for is coming from him.

I agree with you more here. He's president, not a dictator and he can't enforce a lot of the policies he wants to change. I think he can take a more active role and influence things better than he is now, and his State of the Union seemed to indicate this. I wonder if he has the force of personality to get a lot of it done.

Of course there are some things he's back pedaled on that give me no end of frustration, but those are mostly Liberal issues that, frankly, he probably never had the power to do.

Lets see now. Who filled their cabinet posts with lobbyist after vowing not to?

Yes, he broke his promise on not allowing lobbyists in his administration.

However he did provide a transparency mechanism to see who is a lobbyist in his administration and has fewer of them than any president in modern times. It's not perfect, nor arguably even good enough, but it is better.

Who campaigned with the transparency pledge then developed a health care plan behind closed doors and limited examination of the bill to 72 hours before the vote??

The Senate.

How did that stimulus bill work out for the middle class and poor of the country?

Don't know yet.

What has this guy done to help this country? You don't need to believe what any news the media "filters".

A lot. It's easy to argue he hasn't done enough. I tend to agree, more on quality than quantity though. He's been relatively prolific, although I'd rather he focus solidly on some of the big issues rather than the hands off approach he's taken to them so far.

Listen to the mans own words and match what he says and what he does for yourself. They don't add up. What gives you reason to believe this or anything else he says? If he has a plan, why not present it now? Learn from the past. The spin you need to watch out for is coming from him.

I agree with you more here. He's president, not a dictator and he can't enforce a lot of the policies he wants to change. I think he can take a more active role and influence things better than he is now, and his State of the Union seemed to indicate this. I wonder if he has the force of personality to get a lot of it done.

Of course there are some things he's back pedaled on that give me no end of frustration, but those are mostly Liberal issues that, frankly, he probably never had the power to do.

I can recommend Politifact. He really is quite bad.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Actually, he's doing a surprisingly good job keeping his promises. Whether we want him to or not, that's a different question.

An excellent overview of related pledges and current status:
Obama campaign pledges related to space

I haven't had time to thoroughly research the claim (that Obama pledged to kill Constellation), but as far as I can tell, it's false.

I don't personally recall Obama pledging to kill Constellation in his campaign, and I do pay attention to such things. He did promise to extend the Shuttle flight schedule by one flight, which has apparently been done. (The AMS instrument, which was built at great expense was going to be grounded by NASA in their rush to kill the ISS and retire the Shuttle, but that instrument shows up on the flight schedule, now.)

During the campaign, there were one or two articles claiming that he promised to increase the NASA budget during a speech in Florida, but those pledges don't appear to have been repeated anywhere, don't appear to have been followed up on by any career journalists, and it's not clear the reporting was accurate. Really, there was hardly any discussion of NASA in the campaign at all, by any candidate.

Only Obama and McCain had any real chance of winning (sorry guys, the Green Party and Libertarians have been, and always will be, fringe groups run by potheads with a pro-drug agenda) and it was beyond obvious that McCain was willing to run this country into the ground for the sake of the almighty dollar. So I picked Obama, mainly because I love America and want the best for this country. But has he delivered?

Good question. How about some data?

(As a Briton, I have no particular opinion on the matter).

Check out this article on politifact: here. It doesn't dispute that people's quality of life suffers due to lack of healthcare, but it does dispute some misinformation regarding actual earlier deaths.

Personally, I'm not against poor people like myself having healthcare. If they can't get it through their employer, I would rather see private charity step in than the government, but unfortunately we do live in a country where the government has largely taken the place of private charity. What must be, must be.