Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Now the Obama is Nixon comparisons have begun

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 09:50 AM
Original message
Now the Obama is Nixon comparisons have begun
Bruce Bartlett: Barack Obama: The Democrats’ Richard Nixon?

There is no question that Barack Obama is one of our most enigmatic presidents. Despite having published two volumes of memoirs before being elected president, we really don’t know that much about what makes him tick. The ongoing debate over the deficit and the debt limit is clarifying what I think he is: a Democratic Richard Nixon.

<...>

Conservatives finally got the president they had always hoped for when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. But by then, key New Deal/Great Society programs like Social Security and Medicare were so deeply embedded in government and society that he never lifted a finger to dismantle them. Reagan even raised taxes 11 times to keep them funded.

<...>

Here are a few examples of Obama's effective conservatism:

  • His stimulus bill was half the size that his advisers thought necessary;

  • He continued Bush’s war and national security policies without change and even retained Bush’s defense secretary;

  • He put forward a health plan almost identical to those that had been supported by Republicans such as Mitt Romney in the recent past, pointedly rejecting the single-payer option favored by liberals;

  • He caved to conservative demands that the Bush tax cuts be extended without getting any quid pro quo whatsoever;

  • And in the past few weeks he has supported deficit reductions that go far beyond those offered by Republicans.
<...>

Bartlett: Reagan was the greatest!

Krugman cites Bartlett: Obama the Moderate Conservative

Now, let's run through the list of evidence that President Obama "effective conservatism":

"His stimulus bill was half the size that his advisers thought necessary"


"He continued Bush’s war and national security policies without change and even retained Bush’s defense secretary"

    - In June 2009, U.S. Forces occupied 357 bases. U.S. Forces currently occupy 121 bases, and are expected to reduce that number to 94 bases by the end of August.

    link

    Obama Plans $42 Billion Cut in War Costs With Iraq, Afghan Troop Reduction

    The Obama administration’s plan to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will cut the Pentagon’s war budget by $42 billion -- a 26 percent decrease from this year’s level, according to government officials.

    The proposed $117 billion for fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1, would be the lowest expenditure for the wars since fiscal 2005.

    <...>

    The Pentagon today has roughly 97,000 troops in Afghanistan and 47,000 in Iraq. The 144,000 total is the lowest since July 2006, when the U.S. had about 148,100 deployed, according to military data compiled by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. U.S. troops are scheduled to leave Iraq by the end of this year.

    The war-spending number is the smallest since Congress approved $102.6 billion in fiscal 2005, said Amy Belasco, war cost analyst at CRS.

    <...>


    First US troops leave Afghanistan as drawdown begins

"He put forward a health plan almost identical to those that had been supported by Republicans such as Mitt Romney in the recent past, pointedly rejecting the single-payer option favored by liberals"

    It's funny that a former Reagan man is using the claim that Obama rejected single payer as proof that Obama is conservative. When the hell did Obama promise single payer and who expected Congress to pass it? Every health care plan since Nixon's, including Clinton's, contained elements of Nixon's plan and the 1993 Republican plan

    The so-called RomneyCare was largely a bill written by a Democratic legislature and vetoed by Romney. The legislature overrode his veto of key provisions:

    In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

    On April 12, 2006 Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation. Romney vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.<17> Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.<18> The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.<19>


    Video: Nixon HMOs

    Nixon gave us HMOs. President Obama established a path to get to single payer.

    Not only did the President's health plan extend free preventive health care to seniors, it changed the MLR. List of provisions.

"He caved to conservative demands that the Bush tax cuts be extended without getting any quid pro quo whatsoever"

    Just FYI: This right-wing controlled House is why Obama cut a tax deal last year

    There were quite a few people who wanted the President to hand off unemployment benefits to the Republican Congress.

    That would have been a recipe for disaster: handing the GOP a hostage that no one in the Republican Party cares about: Unemployed Americans.

    Can you imagine? A bargaining chip to use over and over again for an entire year? First they would have let the unemployed suffer (they did for seven weeks last year), and then under pressure they would have raised it for about three months, but not before the MSM had a chance to blame Democrats. Then they would have repeated that cycle a couple more times.

    Forget the other parts of the deal---Medicaid expanded funding, EITC, and other aid would have been history. The GOP would never have considered those.

    The GOP's only bargaining chip now is the debt ceiling, which if allowed to expire would also affects Wall Street. That is why there is a civil war brewing among the GOP.


And in the past few weeks he has supported deficit reductions that go far beyond those offered by Republicans.

    True. Reid's plan cuts $2.2 trillion, including $1.2 trillion in cuts to the defense budget by ending the wars.

It's easy to simply say Obama is conservative if one ignores that there is a Congress that impacts the legislative process.

President Obama is not Nixon, nor is he to the right of Nixon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Next up will be "Obama = Reagan"
You know, because President Obama "praises" him so much.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
27. Ever notice that
Edited on Thu Jul-28-11 11:50 AM by ProSense
no ever accuses Clinton of being to the right of Reagan or Nixon?

President Obama, who is reversing the negative policies of his predecessors, is being portrayed as someone whose RW policies are going to destroy the Democratic Party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
2. Thanks; facts help (those who care.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. Thanks
Far too few do!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. "but I think you missed the point of the blog"
You should read the comments at Krugman's blog. They seem to have missed the point also, that is unless the point was to persuade those responding that Obama is so far right he doesn't deserve Democratic support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Big Blue Marble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. "so far to the right he doesn't deserve Democratic support."
Isn't that the questions that is more and more on the table all over the country right now.
I read lots of blog comments, too. And I talk to many liberals. This question is under serious
consideration as I have never seen previously. His attempt to weakened the big three has
shifted this conversation seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. So
"Isn't that the questions that is more and more on the table all over the country right now.
I read lots of blog comments, too. And I talk to many liberals. This question is under serious
consideration as I have never seen previously. His attempt to weakened the big three has
shifted this conversation seriously."

...you're saying that was the point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
16. yup i agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
4. why? has he suddenly lurched to the left?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. My first thought too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
5. If it's any consolation
Edited on Thu Jul-28-11 10:09 AM by BeyondGeography
Bartlett also placed Ike to the left of Clinton.

This was about political context. Like Nixon, Obama has recognized the changes in the landscape that the other side has achieved and has sought to exploit them politically. On national security, that has made sense, on spending, not so much. If he thinks fiscal responsibility is a conservative plank, he's wrong. What's missing is a sustained critique of the reality he inherited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vroomvroom Donating Member (496 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
7. The issue is that Obama NEVER Tries to put up a Fight..
At least i would have respect if he tried to fight for a cause and lost. But to never try and worst always cave is embarrassing.
His constant capitulation makes him look like he either loves the right or is terrified of them and so is willing to cave to anything they want.

Sure with how congress is made up right now (and even with the supermajority thhe democrats had for 2 years) he still cant get stuff he wants passed but what is worse is that Obama never, EVER tries to push for genuine left causes. He openly admits he will always look to compromise even when he does not have to.

If Obama is not a right president then he certainly leaves himself way open to be controlled by the right to do their work for him.

The problem with the Right is that they know Obama will cave that they've become so greedy that they dont know when to take a deal offerred by Obama that gives them everything they want. Everytime Obama gives in to their demands they realize they want more because Obama will give it to them.

Something needs to change and maybe in his next term or maybe in his personal life he will grow a pair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
8. relax, it's just history
Obviously he's not comparing them based on the things everyone thinks of about Nixon. Obama and Nixon are completely different in a lot of obvious ways: their personality, their ethics, their political style, their experience and age. He's comparing him on one dimension only and it seems to be pretty accurate to me, and interesting.

And your commentary isn't useful at all because it is just defensive spin.

I love Krugman's line, "I await the frothing-at-the-mouth comments."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Hmmmm?
"He's comparing him on one dimension only and it seems to be pretty accurate to me, and interesting."

Which dimension is that? Is it the dimension that Congress forced Nixon to end the Vietnam war and a huge movement pushed him toward environmental policies?

Is it the dimension that allows for the Democratic majority in both chambers under Nixon and very few filibusters?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. i agree with you on the history
"is it the dimension that Congress forced Nixon to end the Vietnam war and a huge movement pushed him toward environmental policies?"

that's how it was, as I understand it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
themaguffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
9. Huh? he can be like Nixon in being relatively pragmatic etc
And don't remind me that Nixon was a SOB, that doesn't mean that on issues that he was not smart enough to realize that he had to work with Democrats often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Pragmatic?
Pragmatic = Moderate Conservative to the right of Nixon?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
themaguffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. i never said that. don't confuse the OP's comparision with others who compare the 2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Um
"i never said that. don't confuse the OP's comparision with others who compare the 2"

..you were the one who apparently confused the OP comparison with others.

The OP was about a specific comparison, one that labeled the President a "moderate conservative," not a pragmatist.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
themaguffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. no, i was that in reality there are reasons why the 2 are compared as opposed to the
OP's reasoning
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Safetykitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
10. The Obama is Carter is more apt. One term and the welcome mat to a republican dystopia.
Edited on Thu Jul-28-11 11:02 AM by Safetykitten
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #10
36. Both alienated their own party
I agree Carter and Obama are very similar politicians. Both govern to the far right of their party. Both alienated the liberal wings of their party. Both came out of nowhere to win the presidency. Both had not resolved their disastrous economies. Both have problems in the Middle East. Both are perceived as weak leaders who can't deal with Congress.

It could very well be Obama ends up a one term president as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
14. by todays standard nixon was pretty liberal
with his domestic agenda and conservative on foreign issues
he was a low life bastard but by todays standards not a total loss
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Hmmmm?
"by todays standard nixon was pretty liberal with his domestic agenda and conservative on foreign issues
he was a low life bastard but by todays standards not a total loss"

So HMO's would have been considered "pretty liberal"?

A "low life bastard" is "not a total loss"? OK then!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. HMOs is not a good example to prove Nixon wasn't liberal
Ted Kennedy had as much to do with that as Nixon, and it's not inconceivable to see Kennedy as a liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. ok, fair enough
I've come across some sites that say Kennedy sponsored the HMO bill that Nixon signed, but it looks like it might be disinformation, so I won't post it.

Or maybe you know, did Kennedy end up supporting the HMO bill that Nixon signed? Also, the Democrats had large majorities at that time, how did Nixon get it through? Was it a big partisan issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. low life bastard prosecuted the war
not too bad guy gave us the epa and osha
where did i mention obama?i know you see him in everything but he is not here its about my opinion of nixon
i was there i am allowed my own opinion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. The question is
"where did i mention obama?i know you see him in everything but he is not here its about my opinion of nixon
i was there i am allowed my own opinion"

...where did I mention Obama? It was simply a response to your comment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. i do in fact apologize i misread what you wrote
i am prone to dyslexia when tired and misread your comment about HMOs
i will say that i do indeed and completely apologize
you are correct in this instance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
24. These comparisons never make sense anyway
Nixon was before the rise of the Radical Right. Now we have not only 30 years of that, but the Intransigent Batshit Insane Tea Party right.

Makes no sense to blame Obama for the changes that have occurred in the time since he was 10 years old.

I am old enough to remember the early Nixon era and liberalism was at a height then.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
32. whos blaming Obama?
the author might agree with that. Nixon was a liberal republican during a liberal era, and Obama is a conservative democrat during a conservative era.

My problem is, is it too much to ask a democratic president to try to put an end to the conservative era? I thought thats what the voters voted for in 2006 and 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. A president cannot "end an era"
that's the culture of the times. This nation changed during the 80s, for the worse as far as we are concerned, not enough as far as tea partiers are concerned. Why would Presidents alone be responsible for turning the culture? I mean now they are to control not only Congress but the culture as a whole? This is making too much of the Presidency, looking for a savior rather than the official described in Article II of the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. the fact that the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 meant the era was changing
also poll numbers showed that people support liberal positions like single-payer, and ending the Bush tax cuts. I'm afraid that Obama's centrism is quashing the movement away from right-wing conservatism.

I just read an article, I'll try to find it, about how many people believe erroneous conservative economic ideas, for example that cutting spending leads to job creation. Unfortunately, during this phony debt ceiling debate, that number has gone up significantly. Obama is teaching people the wrong things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
33. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC