"But I don't get the "keep your powder dry" part . . . "
I meant there could come a time when BHO does something unspeakably bad that justifies utter condemnation and the launch of uninterrupted criticism and denunciation. Kind of like Clinton two months in. But I don't think we are there yet. On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Robert Naiman <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with the spirit of Max's post to the effect that it's not > one-zero - the passage of the stimulus bill, despite being too small > to start with, having too much tax cuts versus new spending, and good > things being cut in the "compromise," is an important partial victory. > > But I don't get the "keep your powder dry" part. Clearly Obama is > doing some things that most of us would agree are good, and some > things that most of us would agree are bad, and there is evidence that > criticism is likely to yield more of the former and less of the > latter: for example, he wanted to appoint someone bad to head the CIA, > and people screamed, and he didn't do that, and appointed someone else > who was much less bad. Why would we keep our powder dry, at this > moment where there are important choices being made that could be > affected by criticism? > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> wrote: >> It's a means to an end. If it works and the end is good, no problem. >> >> We'll have a better fix when we see how he handles the upcoming >> entitlement jamboree, also how the fin rescue unwinds. While the >> latter isn't looking so good, there could be course corrections. >> >> The stimulus isn't half bad, maybe one-third bad, and there can >> be more bites of the apple, as Stan Collender explained a few >> days ago. Hilda Solis is going to be Secy of Labor, Judd Gregg >> is going home, and the WH is making fun of Repugs. >> >> Keep your powder dry, sez I. >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Doug Henwood <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 13, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Max Sawicky wrote: >>> >>>> No class. No populism either (the many v. the few). He was in the >>>> bring us together/we are one people mode. >>> >>> We're not. It's a damaging lie to say we are. >>> >>> Doug >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pen-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> > > > > -- > Robert Naiman > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
