[quote]K2000 wrote:
Also, Liberals have NEVER thought that Obama was a Liberal. Out of the three Democratic primary candidates (Edwards, Clinton and Obama) Obama is the LEAST Liberal. The only people who think Obama is a Liberal are teabaggers, die-hard Republicans, Libertarian douchebags, and so on, because compared to your perspective, anyone who is a centrist or a moderate Democrat is a Liberal.
Hell some of you idiots on the Right even think Obama is “socialist”. Here’s a clue - a Socialist wouldn’t bail out the banks.
Liberals with common sense always recognized Obama as a centrist. You’d have to have your head in the clouds to think he was a Liberal.[/quote]
Please go to the emergency room right away. You have clearly suffered some massive head trauma.
That’s true, but he’s also losing liberal support for his escalation of troops in Afghanistan. No wonder why his popularity is at an all time low. The only group which he’s not losing are the conservatives who never liked him to begin with.[/quote]
A very good point. From the beginning, Obama began losing the center/independents/moderates with his ambitious domestic agenda. Then, as he is wading into foreign policy, he is losing quite a bit of his far-left support.
It is quite astounding that we had a President elected with so much support and political capital, with a House and Senate in his policy camp (with the numbers to have their will, essentially)…
[/quote]
How is that is that astounding?
They thought he was the second coming of the Messiah.
Is it possible to just reconstruct government? I’m not well read on politics and government, but it seems obvious that they don’t care for/respect the people who give them votes. I’m in Canada, and I phoned thsi job fair thing, to see if I could attend, and they asked me if I was born here, a citizen and stuff, and then they said, this is for immigrants only. Like I don’t have a problem with ppl being from somewhere else, but I don’t believe in excluding others, especially on those grounds.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees with his politics, everyone should agree that he is pretty awful at the actual practice of governing.[/quote]
Good point, but honestly it should be no surprise to any of us. If you look at his lack of executive experience you could tell that he was headed for problems. It seems that those with the most executive experience coming into the White House hit the ground running in an efficient manner and get more accomplished in the first year and beyond.
We can be glad that Obama doesn’t have the experience to accomplish all of his left leaning ideas. As it is I don’t see how we can stop health care reform, as he’s put all his eggs in that basket.
I’m hoping as his popularity disintegrates and the moderates continue to abandon him and he loses numbers in both the house and senate he will become completely ineffective during his final two years.
Good point, but honestly it should be no surprise to any of us. If you look at his lack of executive experience you could tell that he was headed for problems. It seems that those with the most executive experience coming into the White House hit the ground running in an efficient manner and get more accomplished in the first year and beyond. [/quote]
Agreed, and in addition to a lack of executive experience, I think he has a lack of executive instinct and temperment.
I think you are exactly right, and if any political demographic should be angry with Obama, it is the True Blue Left. Conservatives/moderates who stand against this ambitious left-wing agenda should be thanking their lucky stars that they got someone who bungled it from the beginning.
Left-wingers should be furious at the missed opportunities and rank incompetence.
Imagine where we would be if Obama was a savvy executive, someone who understood building trust with a lean, disciplined, uncontroversial stimulus and who had the patience to postpone cap-and-trade and health care till the rubble was cleared from the economy.
Instead, the mismanagement of his early presidency will be casebook material for future executives (and hopefuls) on how not to get your agenda accomplished.
Give me a break… “conservatives” fucking LOVED the wars when Bush was president. Invading Iraq was the best thing ever, according to the Right. You fucking LOVED it.
“Conservatives” said “Deficits don’t matter” when Bush was president. Conservatives loved big government programs like the Prescription Drug Bill, because it was purely partisan politics for Republicans to defend everything Bush did. You couldn’t have gotten your noses any further up Bush’s ass.
Reagan’s 11th commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” How’s that been going for ya’ lately?[/quote]
This is all pretty much made up in your head. Neoconservatives are not conservatives, and Bush’ approval ratings were so low for the back half of his 8 years that I don’t know how you can even say this. The war wasn’t even popular when Bush ran against Kerry, it was just that Kerry was such a bad candidate Bush got re-elected anyway.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Also, Liberals have NEVER thought that Obama was a Liberal. Out of the three Democratic primary candidates (Edwards, Clinton and Obama) Obama is the LEAST Liberal. The only people who think Obama is a Liberal are teabaggers, die-hard Republicans, Libertarian douchebags, and so on, because compared to your perspective, anyone who is a centrist or a moderate Democrat is a Liberal.
Hell some of you idiots on the Right even think Obama is “socialist”. Here’s a clue - a Socialist wouldn’t bail out the banks.
Liberals with common sense always recognized Obama as a centrist. You’d have to have your head in the clouds to think he was a Liberal.[/quote]
I don’t think you know what left or liberal means. Obama had the most liberal voting record in the senate. He is nowhere near moderate.
And yes, a socialist government would in fact take over sections of the economy. The bailout purchases authority over the sector. Same with GM. It isn’t quite nationalization, but the government is now dictating salaries/ceos bonuses ect. I don’t know how the government invaliding private industry is not left wing. But yes, a socialist would purchase private industry if they couldn’t just nationalize it.[/quote]
Agreed. I don’t know what planet this guy is even living on. Every SWPL prius-owner in the US has an “Obama” sticker on the back of their car, and not because the guy was “the least liberal candidate” out of the bunch.
What a bucket of laughs.
Obama’s approval rating is plummeting, IMO, because he’s maintaining GWB’s policy of “Invade/Invite/In hoc.” He’s really GWB II, and look how popular W was.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees with his politics, everyone should agree that he is pretty awful at the actual practice of governing.[/quote]
Good point, but honestly it should be no surprise to any of us. If you look at his lack of executive experience you could tell that he was headed for problems. [/quote]
Anyone who read “Dreams From my Father: A story of race and inheritance” could tell we were heading for problems.
But no one reads nowadays. We get our information in 5 second sound-bites from the drive-by media.
Even if he was the most liberal (which I doubt, especially since every Democrat presidential candidate is ALWAYS supposedly the “most liberal ____”), you neglect to consider the possibility that “most liberal” is still a centrist position. Which it is.
Pretty soon - hey - we’ll have more war! The Establishment machine, personified by Obama, is ginning us up for an Iran adventure. You’ll be enlisting, no doubt, to fight in a Good War.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m talking about candidate Obama. If Obama so much as breathed a word of military escalation when running for President the left wing loons would have abandoned his campaign and he would have gone back to being a newbie Senator.
One only has to watch the news to see the left wing of the party claiming that he broke his promises regarding the war.
Do you read much?
[/quote]
You’re just flat-out wrong, and it’s that simple.
[quote]
Updates:
Obama orders brigades to Afghanistan[/quote]
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
What has he accomplished?[/quote]
Well lets see… what has Obama accomplished so far?
Obama has been in office for 11 months, without having a MASSIVE BREACH OF DOMESTIC SECURITY due to a failure to take action on intelligence, resulting in a CATASTROPHIC TERRORIST ATTACK here on the homeland.
So Obama’s already doing a better job than George W. Bush did.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
What has he accomplished?[/quote]
Well lets see… what has Obama accomplished so far?
Obama has been in office for 11 months, without having a MASSIVE BREACH OF DOMESTIC SECURITY due to a failure to take action on intelligence, resulting in a CATASTROPHIC TERRORIST ATTACK here on the homeland.
So Obama’s already doing a better job than George W. Bush did.[/quote]
All extensions of bush policy. We are still at war. We still have the patriot act.
But just out of curiosity, what intelligence wasn’t acted upon? And what actions has obama taken that have kept us safe?
Also, are you acknowledging that you will hold Obama responsible for any attacks during his term?
Sorry, I don’t speak Wingnut. It’s like you’ve distilled the Beck/Limbaugh talking points into just a few key words that only mean something to you.[/quote]
Nope, it is a political fact that Pelosi was handed the keys on the stimulus and the House version of the health care bill. Recall that Obama “demanded” that the health care bill be passed before August recess before any serious vetting - by anyone - could take place. Obama didn’t care what Pelosi jammed into the bill and he exercised no substantive review or discipline over it - as long as it had the public option and passed.
Up your game. You’ll have to better than the tired cliches.
Yet he’s already accomplished more than Bush did in 8 years. That guy just can’t catch a break.[/quote]
A stimulus bill that hasn’t worked, a health-care pitch that will ultimately be nowhere near what he wanted in terms of taking steps to single-payer, an executive decision to try a terrorist in NY (which will be one of the worst legal decisions a President has made in a century, if they don’t bail out on the decision, which they might), a fecklessness abroad that is getting complaints from both the Left and Right, and setting up his party to lose seats in 2010.
The one thing he claims as success - use of TARP, etc. to bring the economy “back from the brink” - is an extension of Bush’s actions. Which, by the way, are not quite the success he claims in any event - but they weren’t even his original doing.
Other than that, and setting polling number lows for a president at history-making speeds, he has done an excellent job.