New York Times article: Obama has adopted the Republicans language and in some cases their policies

[Better Believe It]

Rightward tilt in budget talks leaves Obama with party rift
By JACKIE CALMES
The New York Times
July 31, 2011

Entering a campaign that is shaping up as an epic clash over the parties’ divergent views on the size and role of the federal government, Republicans have changed the terms of the national debate. Mr. Obama, seeking to appeal to the broad swath of independent voters, has adopted the Republicans’ language and in some cases their policies, while signaling a willingness to break with liberals on some issues.

That has some progressive members of Congress and liberal groups arguing that by not fighting for more stimulus spending, Mr. Obama could be left with an economy still producing so few jobs by Election Day that his re-election could be threatened. Besides turning off independents, Mr. Obama risks alienating Democratic voters already disappointed by his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and his failure to close the Guantánamo Bay prison, end the Bush-era tax cuts and enact a government-run health insurance system.

No matter how the immediate issue is resolved, Mr. Obama, in his failed effort for greater deficit reduction, has put on the table far more in reductions for future years’ spending, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, than he did in new revenue from the wealthy and corporations. He proposed fewer cuts in military spending and more in health care than a bipartisan Senate group that includes one of the chamber’s most conservative Republicans.

.... in ultimately unsuccessful talks with Speaker John A. Boehner, Mr. Obama tentatively agreed to a plan that was farther to the right than that of the majority of the fiscal commission and a bipartisan group of senators, the so-called Gang of Six. It also included a slow rise in the Medicare eligibility age to 67 from 65, and, after 2015, a change in the formula for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments long sought by economists.

Read the full article at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43960747/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

[ProSense]

1. So

That has some progressive members of Congress and liberal groups arguing that by not fighting for more stimulus spending, Mr. Obama could be left with an economy still producing so few jobs by Election Day that his re-election could be threatened. Besides turning off independents, Mr. Obama risks alienating Democratic voters already disappointed by his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and his failure to close the Guantánamo Bay prison, end the Bush-era tax cuts and enact a government-run health insurance system.

...Congress voting against funds to close of Guantanamo and failing to pass the public option is the example of Obama's "rightward tilt"?

Since he hasn't dismantled Social Security or Medicare as reported, seems like there is a lot of flame fanning going on.

"Obama has adopted the Republicans language and in some cases their policies"

Bullshit, there is nothing Republican about the President's policies.

[Logical]

5. Nice try......

So you blame congress when we lose a progressive battle and praise Obama when we win one? Classic!
Where was the fight in Obama for many of these issues? No where!

[ProSense]

9. Hmmmm?

"So you blame congress when we lose a progressive battle and praise Obama when we win one? Classic!
Where was the fight in Obama for many of these issues? No where!"

Is that an admission? Should it be: blame Obama when we lose a progressive battle and praise Congress when we win one?

Who voted against the funding to close Guantanamo?

[Logical]

16. If congress is the only one at fault for not getting progressive things then....

why do we care that Obama is president?

You realize that Obama started in the middle on many major issues? Like health care, etc.

He is way too worried about not confronting the GOP on many issues. Mr. cooperation did not fight like he needed too. And he was also scared to call the GOP bluffs on any issue. Thus they know they can hold him hostage.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. He is opposed to marriage equality, just like the Republicans

He says 'Sanctified, one man, one woman' and claims that all straight couples have a 'spiritual element' that no gay couple could ever have, because Goddy God does not want us to. During his primary, he employed 'ex gay' industry figures, similar to the Bachmann's trip, and one of those 'ex gay' hate preachers had also been an entertainer for GW Bush. He came in dripping of Republican dogma and backward ass delusions foisted off as political reasoning.
Tell me, what do YOU think 'Sanctified' means in the context of our civil law?

[pscot]

14. Loyalty is a great virtue

Willful blindness, not so much. Obama is in serious trluble, and he's put himself there.

[indepat]

17. And all BHO's policies, appointments, and actions are center-left for good measure

:patriot:

[Autumn]

2. Yes he has

K/R

[vi5]

3. Here's the thing....

Even if someone is foolish enough to believe at this point that Obama REALLY, REALLY wants to enact a liberal or even moderately left of center agenda or that he's actually a progressive who would rather strengthen the social safety net rather than tinker with it.............the fact is that he is a shitty negotiator. Horrible. I don't care how stubborn the other side is, his negotiating tactics and skills are just beyond shitty.

[ProSense]

4. Hmmmm?

"Even if someone is foolish enough to believe at this point that Obama REALLY, REALLY wants to enact a liberal or even moderately left of center agenda or that he's actually a progressive who would rather strengthen the social safety net rather than tinker with it.............the fact is that he is a shitty negotiator. Horrible. I don't care how stubborn the other side is, his negotiating tactics and skills are just beyond shitty."

Right, his policies don't matter much. In fact, it doesn't matter that the Republicans are economic terrorists. What matters are the screams that he's a "shitty negotiator."

[Bluenorthwest]

13. When a person's job is to represent others in negotiations

being a poor negotiator is a defining flaw. This is true for politicians, but also for lawyers, agents, and other negotiations professionals. If your representatives do not represent well for you, then they are by definition, not good representatives. There is no mitigation for being a bad negotiator in those jobs, much like a long haul trucker has to be able to drive. It IS the job. Inability to deliver results in that area is inability to do the job at all.

[dgibby]

7. I don't think he's a shitty negotiator.

Look at what he's negotiated the Dems into having to give up. Pretty slick, imo.

[woo me with science]

6. Of course he has.

Why would he do anything else?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[woo me with science]

10. They have co-opted the term "Democrat."

They don't even share the same DNA.

This grand deal will be a moral and ethical abomination and will cause tremendous suffering across this country.

That is what happens when you sell your principles and conscience to Wall Street.

[dgibby]

11. "Conservative Dem" = gianormous oxymoron.

Greed reigns. This country is toast.

[asjr]

15. A large problem for me is that we

get our information basically through the media. They tell us what they want us to hear. This a.m. I turned on the television and Alex Twit was "interviewing" a FORMER Republican politico (can't remember if he was a Rep or a Sen). He bullshitted his way throughout by blaming Obama for everything. Later she had another "pundit" on who blamed Obama for everything. A corporation owns MSNBC. That is why the Twit was having Republicans on. No media is fair and balanced! Maybe Current is but my cable carrier doesn't have it. The Repubs say Obama doesn't compromise. Hells Bells, he has compromised us to death. The media are owned by Republicans so that is what we get. I still think we have to hit the pavements in D.C. in hordes if we want to get anything done. The pundits say the public wants this; the public wants that. The pundits have no idea what we want. My two cents.