Politico: Rush was right about prez

[g8orbill]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2IuXYyzJ9

From the article:

If you listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, you got a better appreciation of Obama’s core than by reading the president’s friends and sophisticated interpreters, for whom he was either a moderate or a puzzle yet to be fully worked out.

Rush, et al., doubted that Obama could have emerged from the left-wing milieu of Hyde Park, become in short order the most liberal U.S. senator, run to Hillary Clinton’s left in the 2008 primaries and yet have been a misunderstood centrist all along. They heeded his record and his boast in 2008 about “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” and discounted the unifying tone of his rhetoric as transparent salesmanship.

They got him right, even as he duped the Obamacons, played the press and fooled his sympathizers. David Brooks, the brilliant and winsome New York Times columnist, has been promising the arrival of the true, pragmatic Obama for years now. In his column praising the second inaugural address, he appeared finally to give up. “Now he is liberated,” Brooks wrote. “Now he has picked a team and put his liberalism on full display.”

[JerseyGator01]

I believe one year he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate per one think tank or the like. Lucky for Obama most people in the media and beyond hate to do any research.

[gatornana]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2IuXYyzJ9

From the article:

If you listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, you got a better appreciation of Obama’s core than by reading the president’s friends and sophisticated interpreters, for whom he was either a moderate or a puzzle yet to be fully worked out.

Rush, et al., doubted that Obama could have emerged from the left-wing milieu of Hyde Park, become in short order the most liberal U.S. senator, run to Hillary Clinton’s left in the 2008 primaries and yet have been a misunderstood centrist all along. They heeded his record and his boast in 2008 about “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” and discounted the unifying tone of his rhetoric as transparent salesmanship.

They got him right, even as he duped the Obamacons, played the press and fooled his sympathizers. David Brooks, the brilliant and winsome New York Times columnist, has been promising the arrival of the true, pragmatic Obama for years now. In his column praising the second inaugural address, he appeared finally to give up. “Now he is liberated,” Brooks wrote. “Now he has picked a team and put his liberalism on full display.”

If you enjoy fiction.....

[wgbgator]

I think we always knew Obama was liberal (making him center left). His speech was perhaps a bit more triumphant, but still boilerplate liberalism. I'm not sure how that makes Rush et al, right about their hysterical charges of socialism, communism, radicalism etc. But I'm sure it makes sense to Rich Lowry and conservatives who like to conflate those distinct things.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

I believe one year he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate per one think tank or the like. Lucky for Obama most people in the media and beyond hate to do any research.

i'll bet if you did any research at all, you'd find the media did cover this. seriously, give it a shot for once, rather than just saying stuff. see if you can find any mainstream media mention of Obama's voting record in the Senate.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Liberalism = The incremental way to go about achieving socialism and communism

[oragator1]

Rich Lowry, the editor of the National Review wrote that Op/Ed.
Next you are going to tell me that George Soros doesn't like GWB.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by oragator1

Rich Lowry, the editor of the National Review wrote that Op/Ed.
Next you are going to tell me that George Soros doesn't like GWB.

that's basically it. you've got a conservative writer who has blasted everything Obama has done since 2008. and, guess what? he's blasting him again?? Who would have guessed?
the bizarre thing is that he attributed it all to constant misinformers like Rush and Hannity.

[CalSFGator]

There was one part of the article that was dead on. Obama is a little Reaganesque in that he talks a grandiose game, but doesn't do anything very liberal from a policy perspective, just as Reagan pretended to be a small government, tax lowering, fiscal conservative. Not much has changed from Bush to Obama, and to the apopleptic right's disappointment (they like being angry more than anything else), not much will.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Liberalism = The incremental way to go about achieving socialism and communism

So, basically a really slow and sh#$ty way to achieve those things.

[bluelang]

He absolutely did not run to Hilary's left, and if you think Obama is liberal and Hilary would be a more moderate alternative, you are not paying attention.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Liberalism = The incremental way to go about achieving socialism and communism

Yes, and conservativism is an incremental way to go about achieving reactionary fascism. And learning to ride a bike is an incremental way to go about achieving a technocracy. And brushing your teeth is an incremental way to go about achieving extermination of all non-human Earth species. And everything is the absolute-taken-to-the-extreme version of itself. There is no other option.

[bluelang]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

Yes, and conservativism is an incremental way to go about achieving reactionary fascism. And learning to ride a bike is an incremental way to go about achieving a technocracy. And brushing your teeth is an incremental way to go about achieving extermination of all non-human Earth species. And everything is the absolute-taken-to-the-extreme version of itself. There is no other option.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

Yes, and conservativism is an incremental way to go about achieving reactionary fascism.

Actually no, liberalism has that base covered too. After all, you can't have fascism without Big Government, and Big Government is the desired goal of all red-blooded liberals.

[myamiG8R]

Originally Posted by bluelang

He absolutely did not run to Hilary's left, and if you think Obama is liberal and Hilary would be a more moderate alternative, you are not paying attention.

my favo obama curiosity is that during 2008 he consistently blasted hillary for voting in favor of the iraq war (of course, we have no idea how barack would have voted since he was a state senator at the time of the iraqi war vote) and then tapped the very person who made this terrible (in his alleged view) foreign policy decision to be his secretary of state... huh???

[metalliccucumber]

Conservatives opinions about Obama are not rational. They have surveys which ask conservatives about a opinion about a policy issue. The same question is then asked but it is noted that it is supported by Obama. Far more conservatives dislike the policy once Obamas name is associated with it than when it is not.

While this is, in part, human nature, and dems did the same thing to Bush, it goes to show you the hypocrisy and irrationality that is embedded in any partisan thought. So Obama is a socialist based on his policies or because some just like labeling Obama a socialist...even though many of his beliefs have been echoed by others in American history without such labels?

[mocgator]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2IuXYyzJ9

From the article:

If you listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, you got a better appreciation of Obama’s core than by reading the president’s friends and sophisticated interpreters, for whom he was either a moderate or a puzzle yet to be fully worked out.

Rush, et al., doubted that Obama could have emerged from the left-wing milieu of Hyde Park, become in short order the most liberal U.S. senator, run to Hillary Clinton’s left in the 2008 primaries and yet have been a misunderstood centrist all along. They heeded his record and his boast in 2008 about “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” and discounted the unifying tone of his rhetoric as transparent salesmanship.

They got him right, even as he duped the Obamacons, played the press and fooled his sympathizers. David Brooks, the brilliant and winsome New York Times columnist, has been promising the arrival of the true, pragmatic Obama for years now. In his column praising the second inaugural address, he appeared finally to give up. “Now he is liberated,” Brooks wrote. “Now he has picked a team and put his liberalism on full display.”

In another 6 months Brooks will call him the Marxist that he is...

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Actually no, liberalism has that base covered too. After all, you can't have fascism without Big Government, and Big Government is the desired goal of all red-blooded liberals.

Nor can you have fascism without (1) a strong nationalistic movement, (2) marginalization of dissenting views, and (3) and strong social authoritarianism. You know, three tenets of US conservatism.

But you are missing my point. Saying conservatism leads to fascism is as loony as saying liberalism leads to communism. These movements are their own. Saying the goal of all liberals is to have a big government shows that you really don't understand modern liberalism. These are people that want the best for their fellow citizens, just like you do. Sure they want the government to do some things, just like you do. Try to find some writings of the movement (rather than silly Limbaugh parroting rants). Alan Wolfe is one source you might consider. Here is a nice back and forth with him and a modern libertarian. You might even enjoy it.

[rivergator]

To claim that today's Democrats want communism or that today's Republicans want fascism, or any combination of that kind of stuff is simply mindless name-calling.

[108]

Originally Posted by rivergator

To claim that today's Democrats want communism or that today's Republicans want fascism, or any combination of that kind of stuff is simply mindless name-calling.

ive always noticed that most liberals don't tend to call Conservatives/Republicans the same extreme labels that Conservatives call liberals

last time I heard a liberal use the term "fascists", it was directed towards Crony Capitalism

its quite childish and reactionary when you actually look at the true meaning, but it makes sense when you look at the studies about conservatives being more fear based creatures and low-effort thinkers