Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo
Why are you acting out like this, SDW2001?
I'm sorry, I didn't know disagreeing with you was forbidden.
No, Barack Obama is not a "progressive-socialist" (to use a term invented by Fox News pundits.)
He is. He's a progressive with socialist leanings....at least he is in our political spectrum.
If you think Barack Obama's a socialist, you really, truly don't know what socialism means. You don't know what it is. He's a big private capital-protecting tax-cutting capitalist, which is why your taxes have gone down, SDW, and he's nowhere near as "progressive" economically as FDR. Go and make some herbal tea and put some whale sounds on and thank god you don't have the tax thresholds you had before the war.
Funny, because I agree with most of that. Obama is not a socialist like say, Chavez is a socialist. But for our system, he's about as progressive as it gets. I will grant you two or three exceptions: Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR. That said, those men were presiding over a very different system. Social Security didn't even exist when FDR took over. Much of the spending he did was on direct infrastructure and jobs. I don't agree with much of what he did, but comparing our nation's policy spectrum today to that time is a bit silly.
Obama believes in things many Americans simply don't. He believes in "redistributive change." He believes the Bill of Rights is a "charter of negative liberties...it says what the government can't do, but not what it must do on your behalf." He says "I think when we spread the wealth around, everyone's better off." He had associations with the former radical, Bill Ayers...associations the media covered up (they were close). He had a radical, anti-American pastor. And he had people like Van Jones (former member of STORM
). These are all facts. They are not rumors, lies, innuendo, etc. Obama is one of, if not the most radical Presidents we've ever had.
And his poll figures are excellent. They're much better than Reagan's or Clinton's were at this point in their presidencies.
Eh...not really. Averages show he's about equal...in the low forties (where he will soon be again unless the economy improves dramatically or an unforeseen geopolitical event occurs). Clinton and Reagan both had 35 percents ratings at one point, of course. But I really think the numbers are not telling the whole story. This is purely anecdotal, but I have never seen such negativity amongst people I speak with. I know many people from various walks of life who are now completely opposed to Obama's policies and decisions. These include liberals, moderates, conservatives, and formerly non-political types. One of my uncles is in the latter category. Prior to Obama, he was very nonpolitical with, I would say, liberal leanings. He's now a staunch opponent. I've seen lifelong Democrats state they can't vote for the man again. Why is this happening? It's because Obama doesn't view the country as other Presidents have. I'll say it...he doesn't love the country. I'm not saying he hates it, but he doesn't love it, or maybe even like it. Coupled with obscene spending and government intervention, moderates are turning from him in droves.
Like the President, I think you're grossly misjudging the character of mainstream America. And you're ignoring those factors that are not shown in the polls. He was elected by moderates and good liberal turnout. But he's upsetting many on the Left with the continuation of the wars, Gitmo, extension of the Bush tax cuts, etc. The result? Liberals will still vote for him, but they won't be energized. It will much like conservatives with McCain. Worse still, he's losing moderates over deficit spending, his Israel policy, government intervention, and arrogant/aloof demeanor. Obviously conservatives aren't going to vote for him. The result is a vastly weakened political base and an energized Republican Party.
One last point: I've stated this before, but it's worth repeating. I did not vote for Obama, but I had high hopes for him. I hoped that he governed like he campaigned. That campaign was based on competence, level-headedness, efficiency, transparency, pragmatism, bipartisanship and fiscal responsibility. But he has governed in the exact opposite way. He's been incompetent (see BP oil spill), defensive/arrogant/aloof (see almost every interview), inefficient, more secretive than ever, ideological, viciously partisan and unbelievably reckless from a fiscal standpoint. In fact, I don't believe ever seen a politican on either side that has governed in the polar opposite way he campaigned.