Why are people stunned Obama is a liberal?

[desmond]

Idiots can get Alzheimers.

 

[JB3]

Exactly. Obama is a true conservative. Not the idiotic, pseudo-scientific, racist, religious fundamentalist crazy we have come to expect from American "conservatism".

No he's not. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I'm actually shocked that anyone that usually posts as thoughtfully as you do could believe that Obama is a 'true conservative'.

 

[JB3]

Conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan remarked in The Atlantic that Obama should be a Republican. Both Chris Matthews and The New York Times have observed that the Obama administration governs from the center-right.

On what planet? He isn't as far to the left as Hillary would have been, but he is not governing from center right.

 

[NotThatCreative]

The US already has caps on most immigrant groups.

http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=7426

I stand corrected on that issue. The cap on new immigrants is 700,000 though we did abolish the race-based quota system 45 years ago.

Nevertheless, there are some policies supported by European parties that are to the right of what would be deemed acceptable in this country. And likewise the concept of amnesty for illegals would be unacceptable to most Brits. But a form of it is advocated by one of the two major parties on this side of the Atlantic. My point was that to compare them as if we had the same issues and the same left-right scale as the Europeans is oversimplification and incorrect.

 

[NickCole]

So, you want President Obama to be more of an ideologue?

I want the President to have a principled core from which he or she makes decisions and takes action.

Obama's choices demonstrate no principles at his core and a fear of decisive leadership for The People's behalf (that's us, not bankers and Pharma and Insurance and oil corporations), from stimulus to health care to energy to response to the financial industry and oil spill, gay rights, Iran, you name it.

He likes to have as much information as possible before he makes a decision. In contrast with the more gut-decision style of Senator McCain. I prefer President Obama's style. And that's what the DADT study is about, that's what his long time making a decision on Afghanistan was about. The Iran sanctions thing would be hard to navigate for any president. With China and Russia both having veto power, it's difficult to get them through. And the fact that the Dems were filibuster-proof means only so much. In this country, the parties don't vote uniformly all that often (especially in the Senate). He had to contend with the likes of Senator Lieberman and Senator Nelson who were threatening to join the GOP in a filibuster. It was not nearly as filibuster-proof as you portray.

I see you like Obama, and that's lovely. But it badly hobbles your ability to assess his actions as President.

I said all along that conventional wisdom had it all wrong about Obama's likability making him the better choice for President, just as it was wrong about Bush's likability ("I'd rather have a beer with him than Gore"). It's better to have a President that people are more likely to put pressure on that give a pass to.

As far as him being a narcissist is concerned, every president has to have a bit of narcissism. They need to have an incredible amount of drive to work their way to that job, run for it, and do it.

Narcissism and drive are two different things.

And there are degress of narcissism. A little can be good but the degree it inflicts Obama is very dangerous in someone with the power and responsibility the POTUS has.

 

[NotThatCreative]

I want the President to have a principled core from which he or she makes decisions and takes action.

Obama's choices demonstrate no principles at his core and a fear of decisive leadership for The People's behalf (that's us, not bankers and Pharma and Insurance and oil corporations), from stimulus to health care to energy to response to the financial industry and oil spill, gay rights, Iran, you name it.

"More principled core" is standard euphemism for what a centrist like myself would understand to be an ideologue. I oppose ideologues from either side of the spectrum.

On each of those issues you just named I disagree with your notion that President Obama works for big corporations and not the people. On energy he's combining off-shore drilling with nuclear energy with renewable sources. That's pragmatic and responsible. On gay rights he's been better for us than any other president, or at least certainly no worse. On stimulus and the financial industry: sometimes you just have to bail out giant corporations. That's just the way it goes. No one likes it, but lawmakers recognize it has to be done. On Iran, I wouldn't even bet Secretary Kissinger or Benjamin Franklin could take care of that issue. We don't have infinite power/influence. A fact especially true with Iran. On the oil spill: these things happen with that much oil being drilled. That entire section of the Department of Interior has long needed shaken up, but that's a problem that extends well past the current administration. He needs to take care of that, and I won't declare the oil spill successfully handled by President Obama unless he does that. But I'll wait until the crisis is over before I judge how he handled it and its aftermath.

I see you like Obama, and that's lovely. But it badly hobbles your ability to assess his actions as President.

I said all along that conventional wisdom had it all wrong about Obama's likability making him the better choice for President, just as it was wrong about Bush's likability ("I'd rather have a beer with him than Gore"). It's better to have a President that people are more likely to put pressure on that give a pass to.

My personal liking of President Obama doesn't affect my assessment of his actions much, and certainly no more than your clear dislike, if not outright hatred, of him.

Your second paragraph here forgets that fact that likable at home translates to likable abroad, barring any foreign policy disaster (like the Iraq War).

Narcissism and drive are two different things.

And there are degress of narcissism. A little can be good but the degree it inflicts Obama is very dangerous in someone with the power and responsibility the POTUS has.

Two different things, but not wholly unrelated. All presidents are narcissists. It's unavoidable. I don't see it being any more with President Obama than it was for Presidents Bush or Clinton.

 

[NickCole]

"More principled core" is standard euphemism for what a centrist like myself would understand to be an ideologue. I oppose ideologues from either side of the spectrum.

I didn't say "more principled core," I said "a principled core." My use wasn't euphemistic, it was literal. Placing a twisted interpretation over my meaning reveals more about your bias than what I meant.

On each of those issues you just named I disagree with your notion that President Obama works for big corporations and not the people.

I'll address it all but it's intresting that, below, you left out health care reform. A blatant kickback to Pharma and Insurance that tosses us, and Democratic principles, under the bus.

On energy he's combining off-shore drilling with nuclear energy with renewable sources. That's pragmatic and responsible.

There is nothing responsible about off-shore drilling, as we're seeing right now. Blame whomever you want, when an accident can result in what's going on down there with no plan in place to at least shut off the flow (for more than a month already!), the Democratic President should NOT be advocating for MORE off-shore drilling. Obama is the biggest recepient of BP campaign cash ever. Ever. More than Bush, more than anybody ever. And he has failed to take control of leading response to the disaster, letting BP who screwed up in the first place be in control. He's done the same with Wall Street. Who leaves it to the fox who's just caused havoc in the chicken house to clean up the mess??

On gay rights he's been better for us than any other president, or at least certainly no worse.

Not true. Clinton was better, and enormously so when placed in context. The only thing Obama's done is sign a hate crimes bill he was handed as a done deal, which any Democratic President would have signed. Jury's still out, it's only a year and a half into his first term, but so far it's simply not true that Obama's been better for us than any other president. And your saying so, again, reveals your bias.

On stimulus and the financial industry: sometimes you just have to bail out giant corporations. That's just the way it goes. No one likes it, but lawmakers recognize it has to be done.

Bailing them out is one thing. Failing to institute strong regulations in the aftermath is another. Wall Street has been reveling in a victory lap since Obama was elected and kept on Bush's Bernanke and brought in Summers and Geithner.

On Iran, I wouldn't even bet Secretary Kissinger or Benjamin Franklin could take care of that issue. We don't have infinite power/influence. A fact especially true with Iran.

They sure would do SOMETHING. Obama is afraid and so wants to leave it to the UN, which is nuts.

On the oil spill: these things happen with that much oil being drilled.

If this had happened on Bush's watch, no Democrat would give his pathetic response a pass with "these things happen."

Seriously that is outrageous.

That entire section of the Department of Interior has long needed shaken up, but that's a problem that extends well past the current administration.

The most egregious is Obama's response after the explosion through to today.

Yes the new Democratic administration should absolutely have cleaned house after Bush & Co, that's why Democrats were given so much power in November 2009. Obama failed to do that, and should be held accountable. But in the meantime a catastrophe has been unfolding for well over a month while Obama has, as usual, been too fearful to take decisive bold action.

 

[NotThatCreative]

I didn't say "more principled core," I said "a principled core." My use wasn't euphemistic, it was literal. Placing a twisted interpretation over my meaning reveals more about your bias than what I meant.

Sorry, I misread that. It was not intentional. Still, the phrase "a principled core" also tends to be language that suggests what centrists such as me would consider an ideologue. What the far left calls "a principled core" and what the far right calls "a principled core" are ideologues to centrists. You're attacking a center-left president from the left, so it's safe to assume you'd qualify as far left.

Also, stop attacking me for having a bias as if you don't. We both have biases. I like President Obama personally and I am a centrist, you don't like President Obama personally and you are far left. Clear biases are going to exist for both of us, so stop pointing out my bias as if it's a strike against me. It's not.

I'll address it all but it's intresting that, below, you left out health care reform. A blatant kickback to Pharma and Insurance that tosses us, and Democratic principles, under the bus.

Leaving out health care reform was also inadvertant. I've pointed out several times before on this forum that the bill was about as liberal as it could've been and made it through the Senate.

There is nothing responsible about off-shore drilling, as we're seeing right now. Blame whomever you want, when an accident can result in what's going on down there with no plan in place to at least shut off the flow (for more than a month already!), the Democratic President should NOT be advocating for MORE off-shore drilling. Obama is the biggest recepient of BP campaign cash ever. Ever. More than Bush, more than anybody ever. And he has failed to take control of leading response to the disaster, letting BP who screwed up in the first place be in control. He's done the same with Wall Street. Who leaves it to the fox who's just caused havoc in the chicken house to clean up the mess??

In order to get the permit to do the drilling BP had to fill out a raft of forms, and they had to have a plan in place. BP lied. That's not President Obama's fault.

You can consider off-shore drilling irresponsible if you want, but it'll only be true in a lack of context. Off-shore drilling, as political analysts across the spectrum would agree, is a necessary short-term step to wean us off foreign oil.

I did say, though, that on the issue of the oil spill the president must take this opportunity to shake up the Department of the Interior. If he doesn't, then his reaction was a failure in my book.

Not true. Clinton was better, and enormously so when placed in context. The only thing Obama's done is sign a hate crimes bill he was handed as a done deal, which any Democratic President would have signed. Jury's still out, it's only a year and a half into his first term, but so far it's simply not true that Obama's been better for us than any other president. And your saying so, again, reveals your bias.

I added that he's at least no worse than any former president. Given that DADT is going to be repealed and he signed the hate crime law, whereas President Clinton gave us DADT and DOMA. You can twist that all you want, but no one could objectively look at that and conclude President Obama's worse than President Clinton. I would argue he's better.

Bailing them out is one thing. Failing to institute strong regulations in the aftermath is another. Wall Street has been reveling in a victory lap since Obama was elected and kept on Bush's Bernanke and brought in Summers and Geithner.

The Wall Street regulations are on the Senate floor now. It was because of the Senate, not President Obama, that it took so long for there to be movement.

They sure would do SOMETHING. Obama is afraid and so wants to leave it to the UN, which is nuts.

Saying "leave it to the UN" makes it sound as if the US isn't part of the UN. What would you have him do instead of UN sanctions? Which, by the way, thanks to President Obama and Secretary Clinton, China and Russia are on board for the fourth round of sanctions at the moment. I'd argue with the Brazil/Turkey/Iran deal sanctions should be put on hold for awhile, actually. But if you think unilateral sanctions are the answer, history would disagree with you.

If this had happened on Bush's watch, no Democrat would give his pathetic response a pass with "these things happen."

Seriously that is outrageous.

I did on Hurricane Katrina. I'm no Democrat, so attacking Democrats won't do you any good here.

The most egregious is Obama's response after the explosion through to today.

Yes the new Democratic administration should absolutely have cleaned house after Bush & Co, that's why Democrats were given so much power in November 2009. Obama failed to do that, and should be held accountable. But in the meantime a catastrophe has been unfolding for well over a month while Obama has, as usual, been too fearful to take decisive bold action.

Polls show the people don't want President Obama doing anything. Plus, what action do you want him to take? BP employs more experts in the field than the government does. And BP has a good profit incentive to stop the leak. What do you think a smaller team of government officials could do that hasn't already been attempted?

 

[CoolBlue71]

Come on? Why are republicans always attacking him for being a liberal or socialist? Do they know the more they call him that, the less "derogatory" it becomes.
Always accusing him of running a "hard left government". Im pretty sure thats what 67 million people voted for. Im a proud liberal and proud that our president is too.

On another note, I shut down one of my republican friends cold when I asked him if he would rather have Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin negotiating with the president of iran or russia. he didnt have much to say after that.

That's how Republicans generally campaign. In whatever political race. On whatever issue.

Real problem is that we don't get arguments effectively argued and defended in favor of liberal policy. Or some liberal policy … on this issue, or that issue.

 

[Apollo]

Nonsense.

Being ready to be President means being ready to assume the responsibility of leadership and decisiveness.

It's clear Obama is in way over his head, it shows in that bit about Iran sanctions (which is a big deal), it shows with DADT (putting it off with hearings and studies rather than just working with Congress to repeal it), it shows with the oil spill and energy policy, it shows with health care reform that, despite a Dem White House and filibuster proof Senate Dem majority and overwhelming House Dem majority and passing with zero Republican votes, bares little resemblance to what Democrats ran on and have fought for for years. It shows in a long list of ways. Obama is incompetent at utilizing the incredible opportunity Democrats have had since January 2009.

Obama isn't a liberal and isn't conservative, and certainly is not a progressive. He is an unprincipled narcissist.

Obama has assumed a strong leadership role with clear dicisiveness. He has made many decisive decisions that he lives with. Just because you don't agree with what he likes to stand for doesn't mean he is inexperienced. It just means you don't agree with him. Which is a good thing in a democracy.

Obama has no control on when Congress decides to hold hearings. And hearings are what you do in Congress. All you gotta do is watch CSPAN to see a hearing everyday. Funny that DADT is moving along and getting through Congress right now.

He actually is handling the oil spill quite nicely. He is making BP do it. Which they should be. Why spend tax payers money when BP can spend their own money on something they cause. Nevertheless, if BP can't deliver, there is a team on stand by going through plans if they must take over.

The health care shit was shameful, I will agree with you on that one. But it was def a learning experience for him. To bad it came at the expense of so many Americans. The rest though, your just playing with straws that don't exist.

 

[JB3]

He actually is handling the oil spill quite nicely. He is making BP do it. Which they should be. Why spend tax payers money when BP can spend their own money on something they cause. Nevertheless, if BP can't deliver, there is a team on stand by going through plans if they must take over.

How's he handling it nicely? Until people caught on that thousands of barrels of oil were spewing into the Gulf every day, the administration all but ignored it. How else can you explain that the government just today approved the construction of sand berms in Louisiana, despite the fact that they've been asking to build them for WEEKS. If he was handling it nicely, the states that are being affected would not have to wait for the government bureaucracy to decide that its okay to build piles of sand to prevent the oil from traveling up the beaches.

While he claims that the government is in charge, do you honestly believe that? The government has admitted on more than one occasion that they don't possess the resources or knowledge to cap the leak, which is why they've left BP in charge. While he can claim that they're operating under government instruction, the bare facts of the situation are that the the government quite simply does not have the technological resources or expertise to take care of the leak. (hence the reason why BP is running, and will continue to run, the show) The only reason Obama asserted that he's 'in charge' is so that, when the leak is capped and remediation efforts begin, he can take credit for it.

He can blast the cozy relationship between the government and oil all he wants, but the fact remains that it took a disaster in order for him to pay any attention to it. In the great tradition of falsely-transparent politicians in our country, he didn't voice concerns or criticism until the spotlight shone brightly on the problems and he was opened up to criticism.

 

[Apollo]

How's he handling it nicely? Until people caught on that thousands of barrels of oil were spewing into the Gulf every day, the administration all but ignored it. How else can you explain that the government just today approved the construction of sand berms in Louisiana, despite the fact that they've been asking to build them for WEEKS. If he was handling it nicely, the states that are being affected would not have to wait for the government bureaucracy to decide that its okay to build piles of sand to prevent the oil from traveling up the beaches.

While he claims that the government is in charge, do you honestly believe that? The government has admitted on more than one occasion that they don't possess the resources or knowledge to cap the leak, which is why they've left BP in charge. While he can claim that they're operating under government instruction, the bare facts of the situation are that the the government quite simply does not have the technological resources or expertise to take care of the leak. (hence the reason why BP is running, and will continue to run, the show) The only reason Obama asserted that he's 'in charge' is so that, when the leak is capped and remediation efforts begin, he can take credit for it.

He can blast the cozy relationship between the government and oil all he wants, but the fact remains that it took a disaster in order for him to pay any attention to it. In the great tradition of falsely-transparent politicians in our country, he didn't voice concerns or criticism until the spotlight shone brightly on the problems and he was opened up to criticism.

I was talking about the actually oil spilling out. I have no idea about whats going on with the coast and all of that. You're probably right. You're the only conservative type (republican?) who is even handed, so I will take your word for it.

I think it was the right choice though, to leave the leak situation to BP though. And they did keep an eye on BP the whole time to see if they kept to cleaning it up. BP is sketchy as a motherfucker though.

As for your last paragraph. Isn't that how all things go? No one pays attention to anything until it becomes a problem. Not a defense of Obama at all, still stupid. But that is life.

 

[JB3]

I was talking about the actually oil spilling out. I have no idea about whats going on with the coast and all of that. You're probably right. You're the only conservative type (republican?) who is even handed, so I will take your word for it.

I think it was the right choice though, to leave the leak situation to BP though. And they did keep an eye on BP the whole time to see if they kept to cleaning it up. BP is sketchy as a motherfucker though.

As for your last paragraph. Isn't that how all things go? No one pays attention to anything until it becomes a problem. Not a defense of Obama at all, still stupid. But that is life.

Oh it was definitely the right choice to leave it with BP, since they know (at least we hope they do) what they're doing. The set-up right now is what it should be; BP figures out what to do, and the government makes sure they follow through. My biggest problem is that the president attempted to cast it as the government originating the ideas and being 'in charge', when they're standing back and letting BP do what they need to to stop it, and only intervening if they think it might be dangerous or damaging. His wording this morning makes it seem like he wants to take credit for it when the leak is finally capped, but who knows.

I know that's usually how things go, but a lot of people (including many on here) claimed that Obama would never do anything of the sort. I mean, based on the actions of the administration and this agency, things weren't working the way they were supposed to for a long time, so I have a hard time believing that they didn't know.

 

[Apollo]

Oh it was definitely the right choice to leave it with BP, since they know (at least we hope they do) what they're doing. The set-up right now is what it should be; BP figures out what to do, and the government makes sure they follow through. My biggest problem is that the president attempted to cast it as the government originating the ideas and being 'in charge', when they're standing back and letting BP do what they need to to stop it, and only intervening if they think it might be dangerous or damaging. His wording this morning makes it seem like he wants to take credit for it when the leak is finally capped, but who knows.

I know that's usually how things go, but a lot of people (including many on here) claimed that Obama would never do anything of the sort. I mean, based on the actions of the administration and this agency, things weren't working the way they were supposed to for a long time, so I have a hard time believing that they didn't know.

lol, Obama is still a politician at the end of the day. If people think he wouldn't do such a thing when the opportunity presented itself, they are delusional.

I doubt his staff would have allowed him to continue on without a psych eval if he hadn't.