Why are people stunned Obama is a liberal?

[evanrick]

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.

 

[hotatlboi]

The rhetoric is really absurd especially given how much of a centrist he turned out to be. He's hardly a radical or far left liberal of any sort.

If anything, he has compromised too much.

 

[desmond]

I like his liberal leanings, but I'm most impressed with his ability to think and talk at the same time. I don't always agree with him, but that's OK, I don't feel like he's inside an ideological box reading pre-printed slogans.

 

[desmond]

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.

I think Palin and Ahmadinajad would see eye to eye, like W and Putin. Can't see her standing next to Kim Jong il, lol

 

[NotThatCreative]

Conservatives like to attack liberals as socialists when they're in power and when conservatives have power liberals display a similar tendency to call conservatives fascists.

The issue is the left-right divide, not either side in particular. They both engage in this sort of behavior.

 

[iman]

Obama, in practice, is a new Democrat,(http://www.dlc.org/), the current climate won't
allow for anything more liberal.

 

[justapixel]

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.

I would love Sarah Palin to be negotiating with Iran or Russia.

On Hillary's watch, we have North Korea attacking the South, Iran building nuclear weapons, Russia threatening us and our easter european allies.

Hillary is a failure as sec. of state.

 

[NotThatCreative]

I would love Sarah Palin to be negotiating with Iran or Russia.

On Hillary's watch, we have North Korea attacking the South, Iran building nuclear weapons, Russia threatening us and our easter european allies.

Hillary is a failure as sec. of state.

What were we thinking by not invading Russia, Iran, and North Korea all at once? I'll have to send a memo to President Obama to take care of that obvious hole in our foreign policy...

Diplomacy is nice, but no one can make it always work. All of those things also happened under President Bush with Secretary Rice. Secretary Clinton has done a good job. Perfect? No. But like Secretary Rice before her she's done what she can with diplomacy. We can't stop all the bad things across the world from happening. Anyone who expects that doesn't understand anything about international relations or America's role in the world.

 

[NickCole]

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.

Yes certain Republicans and ObamaNation have always been in agreement in their disrespect, their attacking and ridiculing of Hillary Clinton.

They both suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndome.

Since Bill Clinton was a successful two term Democratic President and has gone on to do much good work since, including effectively leading efforts to help Haiti out of a disaster, and Hillary's been a successful Senator and now a successful Secretary of State, I can see why some partisan Republicans hate them but ObamaNation's CDS is very revealing in another way.

And it's doubly revealing you chose foreign policy to deride her about. Are you aware she's Secretary of State, or what she does in that capacity, or that she's been a success at the job?

 

[NickCole]

I would love Sarah Palin to be negotiating with Iran or Russia.

On Hillary's watch, we have North Korea attacking the South, Iran building nuclear weapons, Russia threatening us and our easter european allies.

Hillary is a failure as sec. of state.

There it is.

What I'd expect to hear from a BushRepublican.

You're wrong. (SO wrong!) But at least your opinion aligns with your neocon partisan positions.

 

[T-Rexx]

Let's make one thing clear: Obama is NOT a liberal!

He opposes gay marriage, wants to drill more offshore oil rigs, wants to build more nuclear power plants (even without any plan for dealing with their waste), signed into law a health care plan that promotes the interests of the insurance industry, has avoided regulating Wall Street, has appointed Republicans to his cabinet, has appointed only centrists to the supreme court, and has gone out of his way accommodate conservative positions on immigration, the environment, the economy, and the military.

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.

Obama is unusual among American conservatives in that he is intelligent, articulate, erudite, lacks religious extremism, respects the contributions of science, respects the value of government, and is not a bigot. Those qualities create the superficial impression of a liberal. But they are not exclusively liberal qualities.

 

[NickCole]

I would love Sarah Palin to be negotiating with Iran or Russia.

On Hillary's watch, we have North Korea attacking the South, Iran building nuclear weapons, Russia threatening us and our easter european allies.

Hillary is a failure as sec. of state.

BTW, speaking of Iran, which I too am concerned about, Obama met with Republicans this week and Iran was one of the subjects that came up.

As reported by Jake Tapper:

After the president spoke for roughly 20 to 25 minutes, McConnell started the Q-and-A period with a bipartisan bill to impose more sanctions against Iran. The president seemed to shoot that down by saying he wanted the United Nations to act first.

"Regretfully, the administration seems not to want to get that bill," McConnell later told reporters. "I know I've had to answer to my conference, and I think the Democratic leadership has had to answer to their conference as well, 'Whatever happened to the Iran sanctions bill?' This is one of those rare bills that could actually make a difference. I'm perplexed, frankly, about why the administration doesn't want to go on and get the bill and have the president sign it. I fear it may be because he would then have to make a decision as to whether to use the sanctions or to waive them."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...d-cuddly-meeting-with-senate-republicans.html

These kinds of decisions are not made by the Secretary of State, they're made by the President.

Time and again there is evidence Obama was maybe ready to be a Freshmen Senator but he was not and still is not ready to be President.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Let's make one thing clear: Obama is NOT a liberal!

He opposes gay marriage, wants to drill more offshore oil rigs, wants to build more nuclear power plants (even without any plan for dealing with their waste), signed into law a health care plan that promotes the interests of the insurance industry, has avoided regulating Wall Street, has appointed Republicans to his cabinet, has appointed only centrists to the supreme court, and has gone out of his way accommodate conservative positions on immigration, the environment, the economy, and the military.

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.

Obama is unusual among American conservatives in that he is intelligent, articulate, erudite, lacks religious extremism, respects the contributions of science, respects the value of government, and is not a bigot. Those qualities create the superficial impression of a liberal. But they are not exclusively liberal qualities.

He's a pragmatic progressive. The problem with President Obama in this country is that the far left is convinced he's center-right and the right, especially the far right, is convinced he's way to the left. Those of us in the center know better. He's a progressive, but he's not an ideologue. He's extraordinarily pragmatic, but he's not governing from the center-right. It's the center-left. That health care bill was about as liberal as he was going to be able to get it (and substantially moreso than conservatives were/are comfortable with), Wall Street reform is difficult but moving forward, he and the Dems and GOPers on the Hill have all gone out of their way to avoid immigration until the AZ bill, the takeover of GM wasn't exactly a conservative's dream policy, and you get the idea from there. Appointing a Republican to the cabinet doesn't necessarily make him not a liberal, nor does having centrist justices (haven't we been wanting those for years?). In this country, the system is set up in such a way so as to require compromises and stave off too-majoritarian of rule that could potentially lead to tyranny of the majority.

Your listing in the last paragraph is also stereotyping conservatives in a fashion that's simply not true about them. Let's not forget that the Great Communicator is one of the most important sources of inspiration for modern-day conservatism. I think if we look for a bit we may perhaps be able to find a less-than-articulate liberal whose intelligence leaves something to be desired. Just maybe.

In some ways President Obama could be argued to be a Burkean conservative, but the philosophy of Edmund Burke has only a passing relationship with modern-day American conservatism.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Time and again there is evidence Obama was maybe ready to be a freshman Senator but he was not and still is not ready to be President.

This statement makes the assumption that there is such a thing as being ready to be POTUS. I think former presidents would bear me out that that notion is false. No one can be ready for that position until they're in it.

 

[NickCole]

This statement makes the assumption that there is such a thing as being ready to be POTUS. I think former presidents would bear me out that that notion is false. No one can be ready for that position until they're in it.

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.

 

[poolerboy]

It's funny but here in California we have two conservative candidates for governor -- Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman -- and both call each other liberal even though they're both registerd Republicans. The rationale, at least from the Poizner camp, is that Meg is for amnesty -- clearly liberal, right? Oh wait, Republican Ronald Reagan granted amnesty in 1986. Hmm, back to the drawing board I guess.

 

[T-Rexx]

He's a pragmatic progressive. The problem with President Obama in this country is that the far left is convinced he's center-right and the right, especially the far right, is convinced he's way to the left. Those of us in the center know better.

In Europe, they have a joke: America has two political parties: Right and Far Right.

Your listing in the last paragraph is also stereotyping conservatives in a fashion that's simply not true about them.

It's only true of American conservatives, of course. In Europe, conservatives are often intelligent and well-spoken. They do not mix religion and politics. They have a respect for science and facts and do not try to fashion alternate "realities" to promote an agenda. European conservatives are (arguably) less likely to be bigoted. They just believe in conservative economic ideals, and legislate these.

Let's not forget that the Great Communicator is one of the most important sources of inspiration for modern-day conservatism.

Ronald Reagan may have possessed average intelligence at one time. But, by the time he became president, he was already mildly demented. He could not remember the names of his cabinet nor of the leaders of major countries. People enjoyed his grandfatherly demeanor, but he was not articulate or erudite in his speeches. During his second term, he was forbidden to make speeches, as he was beginning to drift logically whenever a microphone was put in front of him. Howard Baker was appointed to run the White House, as things were getting out of control.

He knew nothing of science, advocating the construction of "star wars" which everyone knew was physically impossible. He once complained that trees pollute more than humans.

He did not respect the value of good, limited government, claiming "government is the problem" even as he expanded the size of government beyond anything imaginable at the time.

I don't think Reagan was bigoted or a religious fundamentalist, but he was a typical American conservative, in the stereotypical mold.

In some ways President Obama could be argued to be a Burkean conservative, but the philosophy of Edmund Burke has only a passing relationship with modern-day American conservatism.

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

 

[NotThatCreative]

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.

So, you want President Obama to be more of an ideologue? Since when was that our ideal? 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.

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.

 

[NotThatCreative]

In Europe, they have a joke: America has two political parties: Right and Far Right.

The Europeans flatter themselves. Some of the UK party stances, for example, are further right than the GOP would ever dream it could get away with. A cap on immigration? Immigration quotas would be a disastrous policy in this country for whatever party thought to bring them back. How about Labour party's DNA database? Neither one of the parties in this country would think that's a good idea. How's free speech working for the Muslims in France? The Scientologists in Germany? That European saying, while vaguely amusing, distorts the truth. We have different issues on this side of the Atlantic, and our left-right scale isn't that comparable with Europe's.

It's only true of American conservatives, of course. In Europe, conservatives are often intelligent and well-spoken. They do not mix religion and politics. They have a respect for science and facts and do not try to fashion alternate "realities" to promote an agenda. European conservatives are (arguably) less likely to be bigoted. They just believe in conservative economic ideals, and legislate these.

It's a stereotype of American conservatives, and is not true of many of them, being about as accurate as stereotypes are known to be.

As far as fashioning alternate realities is concerned, this is part of American politics on both sides of the spectrum (especially of late). I'd be surprised if the Europeans weren't doing it to some extent as well.

Ronald Reagan may have possessed average intelligence at one time. But, by the time he became president, he was already mildly demented. He could not remember the names of his cabinet nor of the leaders of major countries. People enjoyed his grandfatherly demeanor, but he was not articulate or erudite in his speeches. During his second term, he was forbidden to make speeches, as he was beginning to drift logically whenever a microphone was put in front of him. Howard Baker was appointed to run the White House, as things were getting out of control.

He knew nothing of science, advocating the construction of "star wars" which everyone knew was physically impossible. He once complained that trees pollute more than humans.

He did not respect the value of good, limited government, claiming "government is the problem" even as he expanded the size of government beyond anything imaginable at the time.

I don't think Reagan was bigoted or a religious fundamentalist, but he was a typical American conservative, in the stereotypical mold.

The Reagan reference was specifically in response to your claim American conservatives aren't articulate, erudite, are religious fundamentalists, and are bigots. Since he was the first two and wasn't the second two.

And during his second term he had Alzheimer's, so I'd say saying he's an idiot for it is kind of a low blow, don't you think?

Your claim that the GOP and Reagan not respecting the value of "good, limited government" and therefore there's something wrong with them carries with it the assumption that your conception of the role of government is necessarily right. Which is not a point of consensus in this country.

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

When you're discussing American politics, the terms you use are going to be assumed to be in the American sense. If you I had understood you to mean a Burkean conservative, then I wouldn't have disagreed. But if you think his having some Burkean principles means he's governing like a Republican then you just don't understand America's political parties. The GOP is not a Burkean party. It is the party of modern-day American conservatism.

 

[hotatlboi]

A cap on immigration? Immigration quotas would be a disastrous policy in this country for whatever party thought to bring them back.

The US already has caps on most immigrant groups.

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