Obama isnt really all that liberal

Search

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
I knew this all along

And no, I'm not too thrilled. Personally, I want to see some poise for early going radical liberal policy.

I know we are on a 'wait to see what happens' basis. But I don't care for this start.

However; if you think I am looking at this like 'oh crap we should voted McCain!' give it a rest.

--------------------------------------------

Liberals voice concerns about Obama

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”

Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.

Obama insists he hasn’t abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left’s bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.

Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won’t enact the tax.

Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he’s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he’ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Obama’s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.

Now Obama’s says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.

The central premise of the left’s criticism is direct – don’t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.

“There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. “What does all of this mean for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”

“Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn't seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives,” Aravosis continues. “Once they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we're not seeing a similar ‘we can do it alone’ approach in the transition team.”

This isn’t the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.

Now it’s Obama’s Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It’s not just that he’s picked Clinton and Gates. It’s that liberal Democrats say they’re hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama’s team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.

“At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor. If you don’t think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause,” said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org. “The president-elect wouldn't be president-elect without labor."

During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The “card check” bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.

“It's complicated,” said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. “On the one hand, the guy hasn't even taken office yet so it's a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this.”

That’s a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it’s just too soon to criticize Obama -- and if there’s really anything to complain about just yet.

Case in point: One of the Campaign for America’s Future blogs commented on Obama’s decision not to tax oil companies’ windfall profits saying, “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy.”

Yet Campaign for America’s Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.

“I’ve heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs,” Hickey said. “The old argument was, here’s how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies’ windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don’t.”

Obama is asking for patience – saying he’s only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.

Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have
dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.

“My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?” Obama said on “Meet the Press.” “We don't yet know what the best approach is going to be.”

On Iraq, he says he’s just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn’t ignite “any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”

Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.

“I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way,” Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.

The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.

“He hasn’t had a first day in office,” said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. “To me it’s not as important as who’s there, than what kind of policies they carry out.”

“These aren’t out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is,” Isaacs added. “We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments.”

Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and “belligerent” toward Iran. “But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I'm willing to cut him some slack,” Cole said.

Other voices of the left don’t like what they’re seeing so far and aren’t waiting for more before they speak up.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama’s economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy’s “best and the brightest” team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.

David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post that he is “not yet reaching for a pitchfork.”

But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama’s Cabinet appointments so far: “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Envisioned.”


http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081208/pl_politico/16292_1
 

New member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
89
Tokens
Ego over Ideology.....Man wants to succeed more than push his own ideology.
 

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
As bad as GWB was, give the guy credit in one department: he took radical far right ideals and shoved them into effect without thinking twice about it. While removing any debate or accountability for his actions.

I want Obama to counter that. But I will admit the guy isnt exactly Dennis Kucinich. Barack said what he had to so he could appease liberal voters, the same way the right does to appease the christians.
 

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
2,574
Tokens
So far Obama looks like he'll be more middle than I thought. But...proof will come when he's actually President.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2001
Messages
16,015
Tokens
I'm actually liking what I see - I was expecting some left wing loon grabbing for my mastercard - it seems like he wants to be a Bill Clinton - I hope he tells Pelosi and Reid to eat a dick
 

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
6,145
Tokens
As bad as GWB was, give the guy credit in one department: he took radical far right ideals and shoved them into effect without thinking twice about it. While removing any debate or accountability for his actions.

I want Obama to counter that. But I will admit the guy isnt exactly Dennis Kucinich. Barack said what he had to so he could appease liberal voters, the same way the right does to appease the christians.

Which radical right ideals that Bush shoved into effect specifically are you referring to? Would it be his push for amnesty for illegals? Or maybe you consider his reckless spending spree/debt creation to be on the radical side? Perhaps it was the federal govt. growing at an unprecedented rate that you are thinking of?
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
As bad as GWB was, give the guy credit in one department: he took radical far right ideals and shoved them into effect without thinking twice about it. While removing any debate or accountability for his actions.

I want Obama to counter that. But I will admit the guy isnt exactly Dennis Kucinich. Barack said what he had to so he could appease liberal voters, the same way the right does to appease the christians.

Funkster, can you give an example of a "radical far right ideal" he "shoved down our throats"?

Bush fell out of favor with many conservatives because of his liberal spending initiatives and his liberal position on immigration.

Bush was supported by conservatives because he did cut taxes on all taxpaying Americans and he is proactive in the war on terror.

Despite what the perception is today, his tax cuts and war initiatives passed Congress with a lot of bipartisan support.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
As for Obama, he took a sharp right hand turn immediately after the Democratic Convention.

We shall see how he governs. Bubba tried to govern from the left during his first two years in office, and it gave us a Republican House for the first time in 40 years.
 

WNBA Guru
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
4,836
Tokens
No radical far right wing ideals from GWB. Nice try though. :nohead:
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
45,000
Tokens
As bad as GWB was, give the guy credit in one department: he took radical far right ideals and shoved them into effect without thinking twice about it. While removing any debate or accountability for his actions.

I want Obama to counter that. But I will admit the guy isnt exactly Dennis Kucinich. Barack said what he had to so he could appease liberal voters, the same way the right does to appease the christians.

Shoved radical right ideals?

Um, name one?

Are you high on crack? George Bush is further left than John F Kennedy.
On many issues we might as well just call GWB a liberal.

"Radical Right Ideals" ROFL. What a joke.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
Shoved radical right ideals?

Um, name one?

Are you high on crack? George Bush is further left than John F Kennedy.
On many issues we might as well just call GWB a liberal.

"Radical Right Ideals" ROFL. What a joke.

An attempt to privatise Social Security is one. Can you imagine if AIM had control over investing SS funds.

All the "No Bid" contracts in Iraq would be another. Hell it seems as though he was attempting to privatise the Army.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
An attempt to privatise Social Security is one. Can you imagine if AIM had control over investing SS funds.

All the "No Bid" contracts in Iraq would be another. Hell it seems as though he was attempting to privatise the Army.

An attempt to privatize social security is "shoving down one's throat"? Did they even have a vote on this issue?

And yes, everyone would have benefited from the privatization of social security, and retirees today would still have an asset worth hundreds of thousands of dollars as opposed to living in fucking poverty depending on the worst managed pension fund in the history of pension funds. They would have more money to live on AND an asset they could leave their beneficiaries. There is no real debate has to what would be the best option, there's only a misrepresentation of the facts or a lack of understanding of the issues.

You do realize that people who have recently retired would have been investing in the market over the last 45 years, right? what do you think their return would have been again?

No bid contracts in the time of war are a far right ideal?

:ohno:
 

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
I never said throat

I said shoved them through as in got them approved

Willie, you should watch the daily show tonight Huckabee is on (I saw it @ 11 last night actually the clip is probably at the site). They had a pretty good debate. Good viewing.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
6,676
Tokens
Oh the Funkster tries so hard to come off as a smart guy. LOL Yeah all those far right thoughts of spending and creating a bigger government.

Maybe if Bush would have been a TRUE conservative we would not be in this spot.

Like........

No morgages for people that can't pay them.

No nation building

No more spending

No more money for Africa since they are all a bunch of stupid natives




Yeah all those values would look real good right now......you think?
 

L5Y, USC is 4-0 vs SEC, outscoring them 167-48!!!
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
7,025
Tokens
I knew this all along

And no, I'm not too thrilled. Personally, I want to see some poise for early going radical liberal policy.

I know we are on a 'wait to see what happens' basis. But I don't care for this start.

However; if you think I am looking at this like 'oh crap we should voted McCain!' give it a rest.

--------------------------------------------

Liberals voice concerns about Obama

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”

Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.

Obama insists he hasn’t abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left’s bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.

Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won’t enact the tax.

Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he’s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he’ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Obama’s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.

Now Obama’s says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.

The central premise of the left’s criticism is direct – don’t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.

“There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. “What does all of this mean for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”

“Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn't seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives,” Aravosis continues. “Once they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we're not seeing a similar ‘we can do it alone’ approach in the transition team.”

This isn’t the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.

Now it’s Obama’s Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It’s not just that he’s picked Clinton and Gates. It’s that liberal Democrats say they’re hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama’s team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.

“At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor. If you don’t think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause,” said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org. “The president-elect wouldn't be president-elect without labor."

During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The “card check” bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.

“It's complicated,” said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. “On the one hand, the guy hasn't even taken office yet so it's a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this.”

That’s a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it’s just too soon to criticize Obama -- and if there’s really anything to complain about just yet.

Case in point: One of the Campaign for America’s Future blogs commented on Obama’s decision not to tax oil companies’ windfall profits saying, “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy.”

Yet Campaign for America’s Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.

“I’ve heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs,” Hickey said. “The old argument was, here’s how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies’ windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don’t.”

Obama is asking for patience – saying he’s only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.

Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have
dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.

“My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?” Obama said on “Meet the Press.” “We don't yet know what the best approach is going to be.”

On Iraq, he says he’s just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn’t ignite “any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”

Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.

“I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way,” Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.

The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.

“He hasn’t had a first day in office,” said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. “To me it’s not as important as who’s there, than what kind of policies they carry out.”

“These aren’t out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is,” Isaacs added. “We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments.”

Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and “belligerent” toward Iran. “But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I'm willing to cut him some slack,” Cole said.

Other voices of the left don’t like what they’re seeing so far and aren’t waiting for more before they speak up.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama’s economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy’s “best and the brightest” team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.

David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post that he is “not yet reaching for a pitchfork.”

But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama’s Cabinet appointments so far: “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Envisioned.”


http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081208/pl_politico/16292_1

Rob,

Let it play out. He's not even in office yet. Besides, it'd be political murder to try to assemble and inexperienced (where experience is sorely needed right now) team and try to steer a "liberal" agenda with this country right now.

Let's see what happens in his 6 months and see how this administration unfolds.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
An attempt to privatize social security is "shoving down one's throat"? Did they even have a vote on this issue?

And yes, everyone would have benefited from the privatization of social security, and retirees today would still have an asset worth hundreds of thousands of dollars as opposed to living in fucking poverty depending on the worst managed pension fund in the history of pension funds. They would have more money to live on AND an asset they could leave their beneficiaries. There is no real debate has to what would be the best option, there's only a misrepresentation of the facts or a lack of understanding of the issues.

You do realize that people who have recently retired would have been investing in the market over the last 45 years, right? what do you think their return would have been again?

No bid contracts in the time of war are a far right ideal?

:ohno:

Willie why are you comaring SS to an 401K? you know that it is more of an insurance policy, that's why I brought up AIM.

You know about any other wars that we had NBC's?
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
Willie why are you comaring SS to an 401K? you know that it is more of an insurance policy, that's why I brought up AIM.

You know about any other wars that we had NBC's?
..

Legal reasons for sole source contracts include:

  1. only one firm has a product that will meet the projects needs or only one firm can do the work;
  2. the existence of an unusual and compelling urgency;
  3. for purposes of industrial mobilization or expert services;
  4. an international agreement;
  5. sole source is authorized or required by law, e.g., socio-economic programs;
  6. national security<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2]</sup>; and
  7. the public interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are three companies in the world who are qualified to take on the rebuilding of Iraq: Halliburton, Bechtel, and Schlumberger. The last one is French and I think even our friends on the Left can manage to understand that this Administration is unlikely to grant such a contract to a French company. The other two are American, but one of the two has experience in this sort of rebuilding - Halliburton. They gained that experience through a no-bid contract to reconstruct Bosnia granted by the Clinton Administration.
What?!?
That’s right. Halliburton won a no-bid contract granted by the Clinton Administration to rebuild Bosnia which Al Gore arranged.


-------------------------------------------------------


 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,917
Messages
13,575,193
Members
100,883
Latest member
iniesta2025
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com