Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:03 PM Apr 2012

Obama is a Conservative…Only If You Think Equal Rights are Optional

Some people do not know the meaning of the word “conservative.”

“A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who has never learned how to walk forward.” FDR


A “conservative” is NOT someone whose DOJ enforces federal laws. He is not someone who bargains with the other party in power. (Remember the political acrobatics that LBJ and VP Humphrey performed in order to squeeze out Medicare and the Civil Rights Act?) He is not a president who failed to enact single payer health care as an executive order after Congress proved not to be up to the task. He is not someone who escalates the war in Afghanistan and hunts down Osama Bin Laden---that’s just called keeping a campaign promise. A conservative isn’t even someone who attacks the members of his own party who have different views.

You can only call Obama a “conservative” if you believe that equal justice is a luxury that has to take a back seat towards improving the economy. And yes, I guess if you are white and heterosexual and not a Muslim and not handicapped---if you drew a winning lottery ticket at birth, equal rights for those less fortunate than yourself may seem less important than money. Your money.

When I look at the current administration, I see a no tolerance for gay-bashing policy that is light years ahead of anything we have had before. Which former president threatened to cut off aid to schools that tolerate the bullying of gays? I see the first efforts by the DOJ to enforce the Voting Rights Act in a decade. I see the equal pay for women act---and an administration that is not afraid to cut off Medicaid funds to states that seek to deny women choice. I see a president who is not afraid to stand up for Planned Parenthood and the rights of a young Black man to walk down the streets of America without having to worry that his skin color (or choice of dress) will scare the shit out of vigilante with a gun.

If we want to see real and lasting improvement in the financial well being of workers, we can not adopt a "Let me get mine first and then the ____s can have a taste, too" policy. Every woman who is paid 74 cents on the dollar is wage depression for you. Every young Hispanic denied an education is an underpaid no benefits worker who will keep your salary and benefits low. Every young Black man sent to a for profit prison where he is paid pennies an hour to be a telemarkter is more taxes for you and less jobs for you. Every closeted, frightened gay is a worker who will take whatever shit the boss dishes out---which means more shit for all of us.

No man is an island, and that includes you, dude.

Now, I want to ask a question. How would you define journalists who accused Obama of wanting to chainsaw massacre Medicare every time the GOP House votes to end Medicare and replace it with private insurance subsidies that will enrich the coffers of Aetna, Blue Cross and United Health---without actually guaranteeing seniors the care they need?

I would define them as shills for the GOP. Yes, Washington Post, I am talking about you. The Washington Post wants you to know that Obama is going to destroy Medicare. They---and the people who quote them as if the WaPo is the voice of God---are going to assail you with this same old tired story, “Obama is a Republican in disguise” all the way up until November, because they are scared shitless that you might remember instead that the House has voted twice to abolish Medicare. Let me repeat that again, in bold letters this time:

The House has voted twice to end Medicare.

!!!!

On reflection, maybe Obama is a conservative---when it comes to conserving the gains the country made under FDR and LBJ. Maybe those who point fingers at him and call him “conservative” are actually pissed that he is not more reactionary.

“A reactionary is a somnambulist walking backwards.” FDR
53 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama is a Conservative…Only If You Think Equal Rights are Optional (Original Post) McCamy Taylor Apr 2012 OP
In economic policy, he's pretty conservative. mmonk Apr 2012 #1
Well he did stop Bush's warrantless spying program Zalatix Apr 2012 #2
It would ProSense Apr 2012 #4
Thank you. You would think that by now these lies would have died down. Maraya1969 Apr 2012 #9
How is that a rebuttal? Marr Apr 2012 #41
It's not ProSense Apr 2012 #42
Perhaps you can state it flatly then, without a link. Marr Apr 2012 #43
No, I ProSense Apr 2012 #46
So, the answer is "no" then. Marr Apr 2012 #47
A liberal civil rights policy is the only true liberal economic policy. McCamy Taylor Apr 2012 #3
While Civil Rights policy insures the system you are running is equally applied, mmonk Apr 2012 #5
Agree. TBF Apr 2012 #7
Good ProSense Apr 2012 #6
Obama is a Conservative. He opposes equal rights for my community. He says so clearly. Bluenorthwest Apr 2012 #8
Conservatives: ProSense Apr 2012 #11
+100000000000000000000000 Luminous Animal Apr 2012 #16
Add more zeros ProSense Apr 2012 #17
I'd totally support civil rights but God told me not to. Luminous Animal Apr 2012 #20
Not a ProSense Apr 2012 #24
So, what does Obama support? "Separate" but "equal"? Luminous Animal Apr 2012 #28
+1000000000000 FreeState Apr 2012 #31
We'll get our pony when God evolves. Apparently Obama is evolving so God must be Luminous Animal Apr 2012 #33
I doubt a conservative would've repealed DADT, though. Jamaal510 Apr 2012 #21
What would you call someone who fought against quick implementation? Creideiki Apr 2012 #29
Citation (seriously f'n) needed intaglio Apr 2012 #34
He has also extended Bush top-heavy tax cuts, Doctor_J Apr 2012 #51
Conservative; disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #10
All of the above. Jamaal510 Apr 2012 #19
He has done some good and he is certainly better than the alternative, but he is a conservative. n/t Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #53
Well reasoned post, and an excellent alternate perspective. Thank you. Tarheel_Dem Apr 2012 #12
oh brother... whatever he is, it's not working fascisthunter Apr 2012 #13
That's ProSense Apr 2012 #14
You are confusing conservatives wiith reactionaries. Luminous Animal Apr 2012 #15
Conservatives ProSense Apr 2012 #18
Conservatives love to regulate a lot of things.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #22
Not Wall Street. FarLeftFist Apr 2012 #23
I was responding to a post that said conservatives don't do regulation.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #25
Actually ProSense Apr 2012 #26
My point being that conservatives are all about regulating private behavior.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #27
Most excellent post... SidDithers Apr 2012 #30
So we are declaring the log cabin Republicans not to be conservative? TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #32
+1. Exactly. How much good are "equal rights" in a prison or poor farm? HiPointDem Apr 2012 #38
Blacks are in prison and women (with kids) are disproportionately McCamy Taylor Apr 2012 #49
I'm well aware that black men and poor people (not just women with children) are imprisoned at HiPointDem Apr 2012 #50
I think ProSense Apr 2012 #40
What I think is funny is hfojvt Apr 2012 #35
Some enjoyed the idea of Obama the savior.... McCamy Taylor Apr 2012 #44
I never saw hims as a saviour hfojvt Apr 2012 #48
If doing it is wrong, equal rights to do it are a low priority saras Apr 2012 #36
Corporatist and neocon more than conservative. woo me with science Apr 2012 #37
Stop ProSense Apr 2012 #39
No, Obama is NOT a NeCon. That's why the WaPo keeps trying to protect the GOP McCamy Taylor Apr 2012 #45
Well said. nt Honeycombe8 Apr 2012 #52
 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
2. Well he did stop Bush's warrantless spying program
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:14 PM
Apr 2012

wait, no, he didn't. Nevermind.

Still gonna vote for him in 2012. And Elizabeth Warren for 2016!

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
4. It would
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:19 PM
Apr 2012

"Well he did stop Bush's warrantless spying program wait, no, he didn't. Nevermind."

...help if people stop conflating everything with the administration and spreading misinformation.

<...>

While cell tracing allows the police to get records and locations of users, the A.C.L.U. documents give no indication that departments have conducted actual wiretapping operations — listening to phone calls — without court warrants required under federal law.

Much of the debate over phone surveillance in recent years has focused on the federal government and counterterrorism operations, particularly a once-secret program authorized by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks. It allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on phone calls of terrorism suspects and monitor huge amounts of phone and e-mail traffic without court-approved intelligence warrants.

Clashes over the program’s legality led Congress to broaden the government’s eavesdropping powers in 2008. As part of the law, the Bush administration insisted that phone companies helping in the program be given immunity against lawsuits.

Since then, the wide use of cell surveillance has seeped down to even small, rural police departments in investigations unrelated to national security.

“It’s become run of the mill,” said Catherine Crump, an A.C.L.U. lawyer who coordinated the group’s gathering of police records. “And the advances in technology are rapidly outpacing the state of the law.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us/police-tracking-of-cellphones-raises-privacy-fears.html?pagewanted=all



Maraya1969

(22,478 posts)
9. Thank you. You would think that by now these lies would have died down.
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:49 PM
Apr 2012

Some like to drag them out a play with them I suppose. For whatever reason.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
41. How is that a rebuttal?
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:24 PM
Apr 2012

You posted a whole lot of text, and a link, that actually backs up the point you seem to be claiming to refute. An abusive policy was defended and maintained at the Federal level, and it's crept down into other arms of government. Hardly surprising, and certainly not vindicating.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
42. It's not
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:25 PM
Apr 2012
How is that a rebuttal?

You posted a whole lot of text, and a link, that actually backs up the point you seem to be claiming to refute. An abusive policy was defended and maintained at the Federal level, and it's crept down into other arms of government. Hardly surprising, and certainly vindicating.

...if you close your eyes and pretend the content doesn't exist.


 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
43. Perhaps you can state it flatly then, without a link.
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:30 PM
Apr 2012

I've seen you do this several times now, and it always leaves me scratching my head. You'll make a claim and attach a link, with the clear suggestion that this link backs up your claim. If I actually follow the link and read that content, it often does nothing of the sort. It's either unrelated or actually undermines your point.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
46. No, I
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:40 PM
Apr 2012
Perhaps you can state it flatly then, without a link.

I've seen you do this several times now, and it always leaves me scratching my head. You'll make a claim and attach a link, with the clear suggestion that this link backs up your claim. If I actually follow the link and read that content, it often does nothing of the sort. It's either unrelated or actually undermines your point.

...suggest you re-read the comment I responded to and my response. It's pretty damn clear. Another suggestion: Maybe if you stopped obsessing over the link, the point would become more clear.



McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
3. A liberal civil rights policy is the only true liberal economic policy.
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:17 PM
Apr 2012

Nothing changes in this country unless every single one of us has equal rights under the law. Racism, sexism etc. are not ends in themselves. They are the capitalists way of dividing and conquering the working class. Marxism 101. The scariest thing to the Koch Brothers is the idea of having no one to slave in their Dixie Cup plants for a pittance wage.

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
5. While Civil Rights policy insures the system you are running is equally applied,
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:24 PM
Apr 2012

it does not make conservative economic policy liberal. I have been alive since Eisenhower and he is more conservative in economic construct than Republicans through Nixon and is around Reagan and Bush I in application. Bush II was radical right in economic policy.

TBF

(32,049 posts)
7. Agree.
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:29 PM
Apr 2012

There are many ways the wealthy drive wedge issues to keep us distracted, but the reality is that when 1% of the country controls over 40% of the wealth something is seriously wrong. I am a firm believer in multi-tasking which is why I have no problem with voting and working on equality issues, but we've got to keep our eye on the ball. Until we have economic power and control our own means of production we have nothing - THAT is Marx 101.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
6. Good
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:25 PM
Apr 2012
When I look at the current administration, I see a no tolerance for gay-bashing policy that is light years ahead of anything we have had before. Which former president threatened to cut off aid to schools that tolerate the bullying of gays? I see the first efforts by the DOJ to enforce the Voting Rights Act in a decade. I see the equal pay for women act---and an administration that is not afraid to cut off Medicaid funds to states that seek to deny women choice. I see a president who is not afraid to stand up for Planned Parenthood and the rights of a young Black man to walk down the streets of America without having to worry that his skin color (or choice of dress) will scare the shit out of vigilante with a gun.

...concise point.

Holder Stands Up for the Right to Vote
http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/holder-stands-right-vote

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
8. Obama is a Conservative. He opposes equal rights for my community. He says so clearly.
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:42 PM
Apr 2012

This is amazing, to frame a man who clearly states that he is religiously opposed to equal rights for all as supporting those same rights.
Anyone who is opposed to any human right for any minority group is conservative. I'm sure you can come up with some rhetoric to attempt to mitigate or rationalize your way around that simple fact. Equal is equal. To oppose full equality for all is conservative.

FreeState

(10,570 posts)
31. +1000000000000
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 01:33 AM
Apr 2012

Sick an tiered of coming here to be told its acceptable for democrats to be against 100% equality. Anyone against my family or any one else for any reason doesn't deserve acculades for equal rights.


Heterosexual privilege at its finest.

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)
21. I doubt a conservative would've repealed DADT, though.
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:34 AM
Apr 2012

These are the conservatives:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Creideiki

(2,567 posts)
29. What would you call someone who fought against quick implementation?
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 01:02 AM
Apr 2012

Truman integrated the services quickly.

Obama, not so much.

I can only assume that you do not know military history. Navy and Marine Corps enlisted and officers are taught this, though. The differences are stark.

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
34. Citation (seriously f'n) needed
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 02:06 AM
Apr 2012

Which group?

GLBT? I don't think so, check out the health of DOMA, DADT and the progress of same sex marriage both civil and religious in the USA.

Minority races? Don't make me laugh.

Minority religions? As Del Boy would say "Yor pullin' mah plonker," even atheist are now more tolerated in the US than previously - and that's not even a religion.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
51. He has also extended Bush top-heavy tax cuts,
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 09:03 PM
Apr 2012

loudly back "free" trade, given our health care to the insurance profiteers, bargained with teabaggers, told the NRA that they have a friend in the WH, abandoned Labor when Scott Walker attacked them, and so on. I'll vote for him. He's a conservative.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
10. Conservative; disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc.,
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:51 PM
Apr 2012

or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

What in this definition does not apply to President Obama?

 

fascisthunter

(29,381 posts)
13. oh brother... whatever he is, it's not working
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 11:39 PM
Apr 2012

and it's only seen as a positive because the alternative is just about nazi. Nice game... we really have no other choice.... at least to the powers that be. See that avatar I have... it's smiling. Know why?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
14. That's
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 11:42 PM
Apr 2012

"oh brother... whatever he is, it's not working"

...Rmoney's line to counter:

Saved the economy (stimulus)

Saved lives (health care)

Saved auto industry

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
15. You are confusing conservatives wiith reactionaries.
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 11:51 PM
Apr 2012

Last edited Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Obama is a conservative... not a reactionary.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
22. Conservatives love to regulate a lot of things..
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:36 AM
Apr 2012

Shrinking government until it will fit in a uterus is a prime example.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
26. Actually
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:51 AM
Apr 2012

"Shrinking government until it will fit in a uterus is a prime example."

...that has nothing to do with " regulate a lot of things." Still, it's funny that to counter Obama signing Wall Street reform, you're insisting that conservatives "love to regulate."

In what world?

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
27. My point being that conservatives are all about regulating private behavior..
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:55 AM
Apr 2012

Such things as what drugs you indulge in recreationally, what you learn in school, who you can marry..

TheKentuckian

(25,023 posts)
32. So we are declaring the log cabin Republicans not to be conservative?
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 01:34 AM
Apr 2012

It is possible to be conservative in any number of areas and still not be a bigot opposed to equality.

You cannot be liberal or progressive and oppose equality but being for or even a champion for equality still leaves one to plenty of room to be very conservative in many other matters.

The TeaPubliKlans are also not the measure being delusional, reactionary, radical regressives.

McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
49. Blacks are in prison and women (with kids) are disproportionately
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 05:06 PM
Apr 2012

poor, because of inequality.

Our country will not tolerate it when a white man gets treated the way that minorities or women are treated. Then, something must be done. The current economic recession, which has plunged more of the "lucky ones" into poverty is seen as intolerable because the "lucky ones" are supposed to have it good. The Calvanists told us so.

When the economy gets better and Blacks are still entrapped on stupid possession of drugs charges and sent to prison and the nation's children are still living in poverty, the economy will cease to be a political issue----which is a pretty said statement about America. We only notice the homeless when the upper middle class is also homeless.

If we were all equal, we would all be equally important. We would have national health and good schools and affordable housing and decent working conditions, because it would be what we all want for ourselves---and for the other citizens whom we think of as just like ourselves.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
50. I'm well aware that black men and poor people (not just women with children) are imprisoned at
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 06:25 PM
Apr 2012

rates greater than the general population.

However, what is striking to me is that even in the post-civil rights era, with increased access of blacks to jobs, housing, etc. and visible black faces on TV and in positions of power, with some of the income gap with whites closing, the rate of black male incarceration more than DOUBLED:

Between ages 25 and 29, black men without
felony records had almost a 10 percent chance
of imprisonment by the end of the 1990s.

This imprisonment risk is 2.5
times higher than that for black men at the same
age born twenty years earlier.


Black men born 1945–1949 had a 10.6 percent chance of spending time in
state or federal prison by their early thirties.
This cumulative risk had climbed to over 20 percent
for black men born 1965–69.


What the system gave on the one hand, it took away with another, through an intensifying regime of control (esp. represented by the "Drug War" that started with Nixon at precisely the same time that blacks and low-income people generally began attending college in greater numbers, etc.)

And though there has always been a large gap between white & black incarceration rates, the trend of increased incarceration was just as striking for white men (albeit starting from a lower baseline):

The cumulative risk of imprisonment grew slightly faster
for white men. Among white men born
1965–1969, nearly 3 percent had been to prison
by 1999, compared to 1.4 percent born in the
older cohort (Table 3, column 7).



The trend reflected class differences more than race:

Through the 1980s and 1990s, a large gap in imprisonment risks
opened between the college-educated and high
school graduates. While this gap was nearly
zero for men aged 30–34 in 1979,
high school
graduates were about four times more likely to
go to prison than men with college education by
the late 1990s...Estimates of race effects
show no significant change in the relative risk
of black incarceration. In sum, the risks of
imprisonment generally increased for all groups,
at all ages; racial inequality in imprisonment
remained stable, but educational inequality in
imprisonment increased.


Educational achievement is closely correlated with income of parents; i.e. since the 70s the policing and penal system has increasingly targeted low-income/less educated men generally. The rate of incarceration for white men with "some college" went up fractionally (1.5 to 1.7% risk of cumulative imprisonment/death) from 1979-1999, and the risk for black men with "some college" dropped noticeably, from 8.7% to 7.4%.

And this increased targeting of the poor makes complete sense in an increasingly stratified society which has no intention of decreasing that stratification at any time in the future. Indeed, all indicators seem to predict an increase in economic disparity rather than a decrease.

The black-white difference in imprisonment rates is still more significant than the class difference, but the gap is narrowing. And with college becoming an increasingly tenuous proposition at the bottom of the hierarchy, with grants being cut back and surviving affirmative action-type programs being rolled up, with no other significants options to get out of the low-wage, temporary job trap and the decreasing proportion of "good jobs" generally, the future isn't looking bright for the children of low-wage families generally.

If patterns of offending follow economic
trends, declining wages among non-college
men over the last 20 years may underlie the
growing risk of imprisonment.

Mass imprisonment among recent birth
cohorts of non-college black men challenges us
to include the criminal justice system among the
key institutional influences on American social
inequality.


http://www.asanet.org/images/members/docs/pdf/featured/ASRv69n2p.pdf

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
40. I think
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 11:52 AM
Apr 2012

"So we are declaring the log cabin Republicans not to be conservative?"

...the point was made beyond the title.

When I look at the current administration, I see a no tolerance for gay-bashing policy that is light years ahead of anything we have had before. Which former president threatened to cut off aid to schools that tolerate the bullying of gays? I see the first efforts by the DOJ to enforce the Voting Rights Act in a decade. I see the equal pay for women act---and an administration that is not afraid to cut off Medicaid funds to states that seek to deny women choice. I see a president who is not afraid to stand up for Planned Parenthood and the rights of a young Black man to walk down the streets of America without having to worry that his skin color (or choice of dress) will scare the shit out of vigilante with a gun.

I mean, are "log cabin Republicans" fighting for Medicaid, voting rights and women's rights?

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
35. What I think is funny is
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 02:46 AM
Apr 2012

how we have flipped.

After Obama won, all you did was bash, bash, bash him for two years, and I spent two years trying to defend him. Here's an example

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/131

When I wrote this last line

"I said it many months ago and I will say it again to Sirota and whoever. Don't spend all your time saying "Obama sucks. Obama sucks. Obama sucks" as Sirota does here and then think you can wash your hands of a democratic electoral defeat this fall. No, you were not an Atlas moving the entire world, but you sure as hell were not part of the solution."

I was thinking of something I had written directly to one of your posts.

And now we seem to have flipped. You are an Obama defender, for some reason, and I am more of a basher.

What changed?

For me, the thing that changed is that Obama crossed the Rubicon. When he caved on the Bush tax cuts, for me, that was the straw that broke this camel's back. Having just felt the Republican bootprint on my face in the 2010 elections and for Mr. "Yes we can" to further wave the white flag of surrender was just too much. Nope, Obama had his chance to fight for me, but he chose, instead, to fight against me. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/138 as I titled that post "Obama vs. the working class".

And since then, as far as I can see, it only got worse. Caving to Republicans on the budget http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/165 and proposing a trickle-dwon jobs plan http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/160

Whatever label fits Obama, he certainly is not on my side, and thus neither am I on his side - because his side is not my side. And yes, it does happen that I am a straight, white male. Maybe that means that I do not matter to you, or you would make some argument that a bunch of things that don't directly help me, really do help me a lot. I don't buy it.

Anyway, I look forward to welcoming you back to the Obama Bashers Group in 2013.

McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
44. Some enjoyed the idea of Obama the savior....
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:36 PM
Apr 2012

...and were hugely disappointed that he turned out to be a politician.

I was always aware that he is a politician---and a relatively inexperienced one, at that. I have been pleasantly surprised at how fast he has learned on the job. By his second term, he will in fine form.

Also, remember the MSM hype. In 2008, Obama was the president select of the press---liberal and mainstream. I am always leery of the motives of the corporate media, so I was disinclined to jump on the "Yes We Can" bandwagon. The press that packaged him as the New Thing is getting a bit tired of him and is ready to find something else "new". I do not follow political fashion trends.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
48. I never saw hims as a saviour
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 03:00 PM
Apr 2012

just slightly better than the Clinton alternative.

I didn't think that ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich was too much to ask for. Nor, should it be too much to expect a Democrat to not adopt Reaganomics.

 

saras

(6,670 posts)
36. If doing it is wrong, equal rights to do it are a low priority
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 03:05 AM
Apr 2012

The current administration is making the world hugely worse for the 99% and better for the 1%. That sort of discrimination really offends me. What race and gender preference the 1% are is of much less concern to me.

The current administration acts as though it believes a bunch of neoconservative dogma about world domination, corporate rule, and the abolition of human rights. That's conservative no matter how you look at it.

I've seen, many times on DU, lists of ten to twenty different issues in which the administration takes a stand substantially to the right of the population. I've seen many lists of progressive accomplishments, but no lists of twenty or thirty issues where the administration is to the left of the population. Maybe if I take Fox News' word for all of it. That also seems conservative by any reasonable definition.

The House is batshit crazy. They aren't a sensible reference for "conservative" (or even "Republican&quot at all.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
37. Corporatist and neocon more than conservative.
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:07 AM
Apr 2012

He is not a small government President. He has backed austerity budgets for the people while feeding corporations, the police state, and the military industrial complex.

McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
45. No, Obama is NOT a NeCon. That's why the WaPo keeps trying to protect the GOP
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:40 PM
Apr 2012

by sweeping their attempts to end Medicare under the rug and portraying Obama as hell bent upon axe murdering the program. The WaPo will only love him if he liberates Iran's nationalized oil so that the Koch Brothers can add it to their stockpile, raising gas prices to $5-6 dollars a gallon.

This fall we will see a snowstorm of GOP SuperPac ads that quote sources like WaPo claiming that Obama is the biggest threat to Medicare ever. It will be the political equivalent of the Daisy Ad. And a whole lot of people will fall for it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama is a Conservative…O...