http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-is-a-republican/
The Republican Party has moved so far to the right that they can’t even be taken seriously anymore. It is a completely false characterization to cast Obama as some sort of uber Liberal based on his legacy.
.
I think the problem is the Republicans are not conservative enough. They should really hold the course and stay far right like they are now especially on social issues and science denial…at their continued demise.
.
I don’t think you understand what I’d like to see happen.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-is-a-republican/
The Republican Party has moved so far to the right that they can’t even be taken seriously anymore. It is a completely false characterization to cast Obama as some sort of uber Liberal based on his legacy.
You can’t be taken very seriously if you buy into this article or that set of cherry-picked “facts” that you posted in that other thread. It doesn’t take much intellectual rigor or actual analysis to dispense with much of this article or the list of so-called Obama “accomplishments.”
Spot
Wait a second did you say “intellectual rigor” related to politics in the Lavender Room? Hahahaha.
Yeah, my bad.
Spot
You can’t be taken very seriously if you buy into this article or that set of cherry-picked “facts” that you posted in that other thread. It doesn’t take much intellectual rigor or actual analysis to dispense with much of this article or the list of so-called Obama >“accomplishments.”
It takes even less “intellectual rigor” to breezily throw out terms like “intellecual rigor” without even bothering to provide any.
It kind of has a point. Going back to the last ~4 presidents, they’re afford a fairly narrow latitude from “center” to operate in due to the nature of our government. In my lazy, casual pseudo-intellectual speculation, I’d say that the gap between Carter and Reagan was a far greater ideological chasm than Bush-Obama.
You can’t be taken very seriously if you buy into this article or that set of cherry-picked “facts” that you posted in that other thread. It doesn’t take much intellectual rigor or actual analysis to dispense with much of this article or the list of so-called Obama >“accomplishments.”
It takes even less “intellectual rigor” to breezily throw out terms like “intellecual rigor” without even bothering to provide any.
Agreed, you (spot) need to address the points of the article, anything else is lazy. People all across the political spectrum would agree that moderates in both parties have far more in common with each other than with the fringe elements of their parties. For two decades, policy changes have usually been within a narrow band, with gridlock being the norm.
You can’t be taken very seriously if you buy into this article or that set of cherry-picked “facts” that you posted in that other thread. It doesn’t take much intellectual rigor or actual analysis to dispense with much of this article or the list of so-called Obama >“accomplishments.”
It takes even less “intellectual rigor” to breezily throw out terms like “intellecual rigor” without even bothering to provide any.
Agreed, you (spot) need to address the points of the article, anything else is lazy. People all across the political spectrum would agree that moderates in both parties have far more in common with each other than with the fringe elements of their parties. For two decades, policy changes have usually been within a narrow band, with gridlock being the norm.
This article is largely a rehash of the “14 facts of the Obama Presidency” list that I’ve already rebutted, at least on economic grounds. But, fine, here you go:
Simply naming Hillary as Sec of State doesn’t make Obama a conservative or hawk on foreign policy. His Iraq policy was disastrous, as was his timetables and limited number of troops for the “good war” in Afghanistan. Libya was a horrible mistake. His “no boots on the ground” policy against ISIS is idiotic.
The article continues to blather on about how Bush didn’t give Obama a good economic hand, yet fails to mention that Bush did all of the really heavy lifting that kept the country of depression.
The article praises the stimulus while failing to note how much of it actually went to infrastructure projects (a really small sum considering it was $800B); there was a good reason no Republicans voted for it.
And on and on. I don’t have time to rebut every point. Again, this is a very nice article full of cherry picked data designed to just show one, very biased viewpoint.
Spot
This article is largely a rehash of the “14 facts of the Obama Presidency” list that I’ve already rebutted, at least on economic grounds. But, fine, here you go:
You really read the article? The primary theme of the article isn’t “Gee, isn’t Obama swell?” (although it does have that slant in some areas). The primary focus of the article is about the similarities between Obama policies and policies undertaken by the GOP (approaches on drug policy, security, ACA vis a vis RomneyCare, economic policies, etc.). The article is somewhat critical of Obama for not being more liberal on several issues (late to supporting gay marriage, not forceful enough in assisting minorities). I’m really surprised that you didn’t get the primary theme (whether you agree with it or not). Here is the link again:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/...ama-is-a-republican/
You can’t be taken very seriously if you buy into this article or that set of cherry-picked “facts” that you posted in that other thread. It doesn’t take much intellectual rigor or actual analysis to dispense with much of this article or the list of so-called Obama >“accomplishments.”
It takes even less “intellectual rigor” to breezily throw out terms like “intellecual rigor” without even bothering to provide any.
It kind of has a point. Going back to the last ~4 presidents, they’re afford a fairly narrow latitude from “center” to operate in due to the nature of our government. In my lazy, casual pseudo-intellectual speculation, I’d say that the gap between Carter and Reagan was a far greater ideological chasm than Bush-Obama.
If I say the sun rises in the west and you disagree who I am I demand that you provide facts or else your facts are somehow flawed? Somethings don’t need a detailed response because they are so far off that it’s not required.
This article is largely a rehash of the “14 facts of the Obama Presidency” list that I’ve already rebutted, at least on economic grounds. But, fine, here you go:
You really read the article? The primary theme of the article isn’t “Gee, isn’t Obama swell?” (although it does have that slant in some areas). The primary focus of the article is about the similarities between Obama policies and policies undertaken by the GOP (approaches on drug policy, security, ACA vis a vis RomneyCare, economic policies, etc.). The article is somewhat critical of Obama for not being more liberal on several issues (late to supporting gay marriage, not forceful enough in assisting minorities). I’m really surprised that you didn’t get the primary theme (whether you agree with it or not). Here is the link again:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/...ama-is-a-republican/]
I got the theme, I disagree with it. Perhaps I wasn’t very clear. They are trying to claim that Obama is really a hawk/conservative on foreign policy because he made Hillary sec of state; simply naming her to a post doesn’t mean his policies have been hawkish or conservative. And again, the claim is that he is conservative on fiscal policy, when in fact his budgets have been so bloated that they haven’t stood a chance to get passed. The stimulus was so chock full of Democrat pet projects that no Republican voted for it, despite initial support when first proposed. And his approach on immigration isn’t terribly conservative either, despite the fact that his admin has been deporting a fair number; his desire for amnesty leading to citizenship is well beyond what most conservatives want. The one place he has been pretty close to Bush on is on things like the Patriot Act and NSA snooping.
Spot
If I say the sun rises in the west and you disagree who I am I demand that you provide facts or else your facts are somehow flawed? Somethings don’t need a detailed response because they are so far off that it’s not required.
You prefer the Bull Winkle style…
They are trying to claim that Obama is really a hawk/conservative on foreign policy because he made Hillary sec of state; simply naming her to a post doesn’t mean his policies have been hawkish or conservative.
I would say that Obama’s policies have been merely an extension of US foreign policy since 1990. There has been one notable departure in that time (The Iraq War).
And his approach on immigration isn’t terribly conservative either, despite the fact that his admin has been deporting a fair number; his desire for amnesty leading to citizenship is well beyond what most conservatives want.
And the other point of the article is that conservatives have moved so far to the right, that policies that would have received at least some moderate and conservative support from the GOP receive zero support now. Obama is no more liberal in his policies than Clinton was, there are simply no moderate legislators (or hardly any).
They are trying to claim that Obama is really a hawk/conservative on foreign policy because he made Hillary sec of state; simply naming her to a post doesn’t mean his policies have been hawkish or conservative.
I would say that Obama’s policies have been merely an extension of US foreign policy since 1990. There has been one notable departure in that time (The Iraq War).
And his approach on immigration isn’t terribly conservative either, despite the fact that his admin has been deporting a fair number; his desire for amnesty leading to citizenship is well beyond what most conservatives want.
And the other point of the article is that conservatives have moved so far to the right, that policies that would have received at least some moderate and conservative support from the GOP receive zero support now. Obama is no more liberal in his policies than Clinton was, there are simply no moderate legislators (or hardly any).
I think that Obama has been a lot more isolationist than past presidents (with the lone exception of Libya, where he should have stayed out of it). He also has had the bad habit of making threats and not carrying them out, which is something I think a more conservative/hawkish President would be unlikely to do, although that’s probably stretching it to turn it into a liberal vs. conservative issue. In terms of immigration, “way beyond” is probably a little bit of hyperbole; however, his seeming lack of support for making the border more secure before any reform, nor apparently willing to consider anything less than full citizenship for current illegal aliens I think puts him past the moderate position on immigration policy.
I think that Obama has been a lot more isolationist than past presidents (with the lone exception of Libya, where he should have stayed out of it).
Interesting, drone attacks have been carried out in how many countries??? From a liberal perspective, Obama has been exactly like Clinton and Bush 43 (minus the full-scale invasion, which is the great exception), and they are very unhappy about it. Of course, the only alternative is Ron Paul (which attracts a small faction of isolationists). The miniscule foreign policy differences between the past presidents need to be compared with true isolationists like Kucinich/Paul.
It is a completely false characterization to cast Obama as some sort of uber Liberal based on his legacy.
And it’s a bit misleading to claim that “Reducing deficits” from 9.7% GDP to 2.9% is some “Conservative deficit reduction” when 2.9% deficit is higher then all but two years of Bush II, higher then all of the Clinton years and higher then even some of the Reagen years. 2.9% deficit is higher then any year from 1947 to 1976.
~Matt
*I think that Obama has been a lot more isolationist than past presidents (with the lone exception of Libya, where he should have stayed out of it). *
I think everyone wanted a little piece of Muammar. Given his history I don’t think there was ever a thought of being the ones that sat on the sideline and did absolutely nothing.
In terms of immigration, “way beyond” is probably a little bit of hyperbole; however, his seeming lack of support for making the border more secure before any reform, nor apparently willing to consider anything less than full citizenship for current illegal aliens I think puts him past the moderate position on immigration policy.
But this gets you right back to the conservative position having moved. In 1986 there was a Republican president and a Republican controlled Senate. The border security provisions were stripped out of the law that Reagan signed providing amnesty to illegal aliens.