Obama is not on the left, he is not a liberal, he is a moderate conservative, he is on the right

[bananas]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008



When examining the chart it's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad. Despite all this, some angry emailers tell us that Obama is a dangerous socialist who belongs on the extreme left of our chart. In an apparently close race, genuine leftists McKinney and Nader may attract sufficient votes from Obama to deliver McCain to the Oval Office.

[ProSense]

1. So John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Obama are RW tools?

Good to know!

[LoZoccolo]

3. Notice that Howard Dean is absent from the chart. n/t

[GoCubsGo]

55. These are the 2008 candidates.

Howard Dean didn't run in 2008.

[robinlynne]

75. I am surprised to see edwards in that quadrant.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. why? He also couldn't find a way to support medicare for all.

The differences in policy positions between edwards, clinton, and obama were miniscule.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

115. I've checked it before. He's in the exact spot as John Kerry. nt

[IndyPragmatist]

4. I disagree, he isn't liberal or conservative

He is just all over the place. Sometimes he seems like he is on the far left, sometimes he seems like he is on the far right. He is inconsistent. I have no idea why that is, but I don't think you can put any label on President Obama other than "inconsistent".

[EFerrari]

16. In his actions, he's pretty consistently conservative.

Supports FTAS
No active support for unions
Promotes privatization of public institutions
Promotes failed, expensive drug "war"
His hemispheric foreign policy is the same as Bush's only more so
Expanding unfunded wars, uses rendition and black sites
Supports faith based initiatives
Believes in trickle down economics
He's constantly lecturing working people while he quietly facilitates for Wall Street
Openly critical of his ostensible base

[bananas]

122. Yup - and Krugman called his proposed SS and Medicare cuts "Horrifying"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1557003&mesg_id=1557003

July 23, 2011, 12:07 PM

What Obama Was Willing to Give Away

Jonathan Cohn summarizes what seems to have been in the deal that Boehner walked away from; it’s horrifying. Above all, the proposed rise in the age of Medicare eligibility was a real betrayal of both Democratic principles and good government.

<snip>

[DainBramaged]

13. John Edwards, Hllary Clinton, and Joe Biden aren't the President

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Hotler]

117. Corporate tools n/t

[samplegirl]

2. Yeah we need to get that liberal............

Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann in! Yeah thats the ticket!

[EFerrari]

5. This country has swung so far right, I don't even recognize it

most of the time.

[Zorra]

113. Absolutely. Check out

these quotes by President Eisenhower, a republican:

"Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice."

Can you imagine any republican today saying that?

Or can you imagine a Third Way party DINO saying this?:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

For that matter, can you imagine Obama speaking the quote posted above?

I can't.

[bananas]

123. Those are great quotes. nt

[Bonn1997]

118. We have a RADICAL right wing government

And I suggest using the phrase "radical right wing" often

[LWolf]

6. I've always found the political compass more accurate

than any like attempt in the U.S..

This was available, and posted several times at DU, in '08. It didn't fit the conventional DU wisdom, though, and so was roundly denigrated.

I think it's because, at least before the takeover by Democratic neoliberals, DUers found themselves inevitably placed in that left-libertarian quadrant. The disconnect between their positions on issues and the candidates they were determined to support presented a conflict of interest which led to collective denial.

In my opinion.

It will be interesting to see the responses.

[Generic Other]

54. It's muddy in de Nile...

I too always assumed my fellow DUers were largely more left leaning than the leadership. In the past year or so, I have questioned that assumption.

"Just like a tree that's standing in the water, I shall not be moved."

[LWolf]

64. I've seen party loyalty trump ideology,

and personality trump issues.

It's discouraging, to say the least.

[bananas]

7. Here's how DUers rated themselves on the Political Compass back in 2007

Mentioned in a thread earlier this year with links back to 2007:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=967422&mesg_id=974106

114. Here's how DUers rated themselves on the Political Compass

Mostly left-libertian: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1946492&mesg_id=1946492
61% far southwest subquadrant,
94% total southwest quadrant (61+16+6+11=94%)

Somebody put the results on the grid, but that jpg seems to be gone: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1946492&mesg_id=1946492

[leveymg]

17. It's interesting that this is the largest Democratic site, and by far the most left-wing. Tells me

the Party base is far more progressive than most of the polls are picking up, and the center-right Establishment figures who run the Party are really out of step with the majority.

We need to take it back from the leadership, most of whom don't serve our interests.

[snooper2]

59. most of the people on DU are old-ish, retired, mostly female and mostly white

You don't have Juan who lives down the street from me running a landscaping business posting on DU, because he's busy fucking working.

You don't have roofers, any manual labor folks for the most part...

It's not representative of American society as a whole.

[leveymg]

98. No, but DU is highly representative of the Democratic activist base.

Which is all of the things you mentioned, and getting sick and tired of being scorned and kicked under the campaign bus.

All aboard! No, not us, we're progressives. We can stay outside and push this thing if it gets stuck in the mud as it surely will. We are welcome to lay ourselves in front of the driving wheels for traction. Some of us surely will again, by I predict far fewer than they expect inside the DC bubble.

[catabryna]

18. Sometimes, I think if DUers took that survey today,

the results would be different. Just a feeling that I get from the posts that I read. Either that, or we've completely lost ourselves and our beliefs in an attempt to stand with our current President.

As for myself, I'm still in that SW quadrant. :hi:

[IndyPragmatist]

19. I hate some of the questions though.

"It is important that my child's school instills religious values."
That has nothing to do with politics. I know some very liberal people that are also very religious. But I would expect this quiz to view them as conservative.

"Some people are naturally unlucky."
What does that have to do with politics?

"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all."
Um...I know a guy that does abstract art and votes Republican. This isn't something that is necessarily linked to politics.


But it's a lot better than the left/right scale.

[EFerrari]

28. Those questions measure authoritarianism.

An authoritarian would want schools to impose their religious values, would believe that bad luck is somehow not luck but what you deserved, and that abstract art is too subversive to their view of reality.

[IndyPragmatist]

35. See, I still disagree with that

I don't see it as authoritarian to want religious values taught at my child's school. The question didn't say "all public schools should teach religious values", it just referred to your child's school. I am not religious at all, but I like the fact that religious people have the option to send their children to a religious private school. I think you could rewrite the question as "I want the choice to send my child to a religious school" and by agreeing, that doesn't make you authoritarian.

But that makes sense about the bad luck. I guess I didn't think about that one long enough.

[EFerrari]

37. If you want religion taught at your kid's school, you're okay

with imposing your religion on the rest of the school. And if you rewrite the question, it's a different question. :)

In order to measure for authoritarianism, the question has to give it a chance to register.

[Skidmore]

76. Looked at the 07 thread and noted with sorrow that so

many familiar names are no longer to be found here.

[Hydra]

100. No real surprise

The people who were most upset by this were mostly tombstoned.

I'm sort of an anomaly- I upset a fair number of people with my comments, especially about our war-based hypocrisy and environmental and poverty issues, but after being an activist for this long I realize that you're either preaching to the choir or you're being "lalalalala! I can't hear you!"ed at.

I occasionally change a mind here, but mostly it's futile.

[bananas]

120. Someone started a new thread where DUers are posting their Political Compass scores

Very interesting results so far: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1557460&mesg_id=1557460

[Systematic Chaos]

8. I'm nestled so far into the bottom left quadrant of that chart...

...that one small nudge could send me off the edge.

Why do I hate America??? :cry:

[Ignis]

22. For our freedom, of course.

Since "Centrists" have taken to claiming that they (and the Prez) are "progressives," perhaps we should start calling ourselves LLQs, for the lower-left quadrant?

[Systematic Chaos]

68. I like your thinking!

And hey, maybe someday we'll actually see a day when a sizable number of us LLQ's get this country headed back in the direction it was meant for. :)

I was happy to see Cynthia McKinney's name in there almost as far into the corner as I am. I've always liked her.

[MineralMan]

9. And when did President Obama fill out the long questionnaire that

generates those diagrams? That's what I wonder.

But, wait...I know the answer. He did not ever fill it out. Someone filled it out for him. I know that questionnaire very well. I can fill it out and get any result I wish to get. I can put the dot anywhere on the chart within very close tolerances.

President Obama did not supply the answers used to make this chart. Therefore, it is patently bogus.

[Wilms]

26. You have the answer to the question you generated which has zero to do with the OP.

It doesn't say what you wrote it says. And if you click the link, they explain exactly what they did to come up with the graph.

[MineralMan]

32. Yes, it does. I read it, too. They created a profile out of their

butts. I could have Jesus answer that questionnaire, and put his dot anywhere on the chart. Every answer I gave, I could support with a Bible verse.

You appear not to understand how easy it is to manipulate that thing. The only way it is valid is when the person answers the questions with complete honesty. In any other situation, the results carry the bias of whomever answers the questions, since you can support virtually any answer to any question from some speech or book.

I can't believe anyone is arguing that this crap has any validity.

[EFerrari]

34. Attacking a proposition is not an argument. n /t

[stevenleser]

69. There is no proposition to begin with. Obama did not supply the answers that led to his placement

this is some individuals idea of where Obama would be on a chart. It doesnt mean anything.

I've seen the same chart filled out by right wingers that had obama at the left bottom corner next to Mao Tse Tung.

To do this right requires a lot of research into the questions and it requires that we understand that individuals thoughts regarding those questions. The person who filled this out for President Obama guessed at Obama's answers, and that is only the beginning of the issues. By whom are the questions vetted? Has it been tested to ensure that a centrist person really ends up in the middle? What does the person who created the questions and this chart think qualifies someone to be a centrist? A progressive? Etc...

[EFerrari]

80. Wrong. People measure politicians in this way all the time.

And you also have not shown that the measurement is wrong.

[stevenleser]

82. Sorry, the burden is on you to prove why it is accurate.

Show me the methodology behind it, if you can.

[EFerrari]

86. I already put up my observations in #16. Aren't you reading the thread?

If this estimate is so off, your job is an easy one.

[stevenleser]

87. Your suppositions are not proof. n/t

[EFerrari]

88. And your refutation is not an argument.

LOL

[stevenleser]

90. See below., and remember, the burden is on you to prove it is accurate. LOL

[stevenleser]

89. Here is the kind of thing you need to prove the accuracy of these measurements. If you dont have it,

then the measurements are assumed to be incorrect.

http://www.gallup.com/se/128147/Worldwide-Research-Methodology.aspx

[EFerrari]

97. Sill avoiding substance, I see. n /t

[stevenleser]

102. LOL, right, providing linked examples from the industry leader is "avoiding substance"! n/t

[stevenleser]

103. And while we are at it, where is your evidence that this is accurate again? Oh thats right, you dont

have any.

[catabryna]

Of course he didn't fill out the questionnaire...

But, the questions are pretty straightforward. He's written a book and he's been governing for a while now, so if one were to go with the idea that he actually "believes" the way he governs, it wouldn't be too difficult to figure out where he would be placed on the chart.

I do, however, understand your point.

[stevenleser]

71. Are we supplied with the answers that the person who created the site used?

Are we supplied with the methodology and weighting of the answers?

There are charts like this all over the web with Obama everywhere from the bottom left point to the one where this shows him.

[catabryna]

81. This has been around for years...

don't ask me. Ask the people who devised the questionnaire.

All I can tell you is that, from my perspective, I'm to the left of Obama.

[stevenleser]

83. I know. I remember filling this out on myself at least 10 years ago. And I realized then that...

whoever is devising the table can skew the results by the type and weighting of the questions. And that assumes that the person's own answers are being used.

[catabryna]

91. Anything can be skewed...

but, I see that my results are in line with those I happen to agree with. That sort of makes it more valid to me. There will always be those who try to discredit the survey. That's okay. We just happen to disagree. :hi:

[stevenleser]

92. Exactly, that is why you need to see the methodology. See my #89 above

Any time you are taking statistical measurements or surveys, you have to show the methodology or your results are assumed to be incorrect, like the ones in the OP.

[catabryna]

93. Sorry, I don't want to work that hard...

:)

[stevenleser]

94. I dont blame you. I dont want to be in that business either.

But to have measurements taken seriously, that is what you need. :-)

[catabryna]

95. You have no idea what I need.

:thumbsdown:

[Wilms]

38. Actions speak. THAT'S how Obama answered.

Does it matter what he said during the campaign? Obviously not. His ACTIONS are at issue here, as they should be.

[Ignis]

99. Even if he did fill out the questionaire, he'd deny it later.

:D

[spanone]

10. who makes up this shit?

[MineralMan]

14. Someone filled out the questionnaire for Obama.

Of course, they filled it out to get the result they wanted. This is a standard test, and anyone who has studied this type of testing can put the dot wherever they want by filling out the questionnaire. I know that I can. Utter bullshit is what this post is.

[MineralMan]

11. This is completely bogus. Obama did not answer the questions.

Someone filled out the questionnaire for him. Such things are crap on their face.

[whatchamacallit]

15. What's "completely bogus" are starry-eyed believers who insist he's a liberal n/t

[MineralMan]

21. That may or may not be true, but it is absolutely true that

this chart is bullshit. Unless the person fills out the questionnaire himself and honestly, the dot on the chart is completely meaningless.

One cannot make any statement about this without being completely wrong. The dot for Obama on that chart is meaningless.

If you can argue against what I am saying, please go ahead.

I said nothing about Obama at all - only about the bogus nature of this information.

[whatchamacallit]

23. I basically agree, but a lot can be assumed from his statements and policies

just sayin...

[MineralMan]

27. Perhaps, but the questionnaire doesn't lend itself

to others answering the questions for someone. To do that is simple specious, and to put forward such defective data is unconscionable. It defeats the entire purpose of the profile. As I said in an earlier message, I can answer the questions in a way to position the dot wherever I wish. The questionnaire is just that transparent if you understand its fundamental basis.

So can any decent upper division psychology major. It's a bogus thing, and shouldn't be put on DU as some sort of information. There is no information being presented at all - just bullshit.

[EFerrari]

25. The fact is, your own experience of the president's behavior in office

should give you a way to weigh the accuracy of this estimate. Imo, it's very accurate.

[MineralMan]

29. Whatever. Your IMO is not the question. You may have

whatever opinion you can form. The point is that the information in the OP is bogus, because the questionnaire was not filled out by the person being charted.

What part of that do you fail to understand. Bogus data. Bogus results.

I'm amazed that anyone would attempt to do this, and even more amazed that so many people don't see how invalid it is.

I don't really care what your opinion is. That's irrelevant to what I'm saying.

[EFerrari]

33. I put up the reasons I think it is accurate in #16.

Can you show why you believe it is inaccurate?

The author of this graph doesn't claim Obama filled out the questionaire so it is not bogus, no. You may disagree with it but it is not invalid until you show that it is, which you have not.

[MineralMan]

36. By definition it is bogus unless the person who is plotted on

the chart filled out the questionnaire. Nobody else can do it. The whole methodology used is bogus. The results are bogus by definition.

[EFerrari]

40. Not at all. And you've still not shown how it is objectively wrong

which should be a simple matter if it is as wrong as you claim.

[MineralMan]

42. Nor am I going to.

I'm done with this thread. Have fun.

[Wait Wut]

12. Where does Gabby Giffords fit on that chart?

Thought I'd ask since you use her pic as your avatar.

[TheKentuckian]

20. She's a right winger. I have no idea why getting shot makes her a liberal.

[EFerrari]

30. Idealization. It's what the left has left any more. n/t

[bananas]

66. There are a number of reasons I use her pic as my avatar

some of them are personal and have nothing to do with politics.

Politically, she's a strong supporter of space exploration and environmental issues,
two things which I believe are important to the future of humanity,
look through the Science and Environment/Energy forums for my posts.
Those issues were important to her personally as well as politically,
she married an astronaut, the ceremony was at an organic farm,
she's an avid recycler who borrowed her wedding dress.
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x270406
and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3369536&mesg_id=3369586

As far as where she would fit on the chart, according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords
she's a Blue Dog Democrat who described herself as a "former Republican",
you can browse through her positions at her website: http://giffords.house.gov/legis/legislative-issues.shtml

[bananas]

67. double post. nt

[Kolesar]

24. "Libertarian" means submitting to corporate authoritarianism

so the chart bends back into the wormhole

[krabigirl]

74. no, it doesn't.

[Warren Stupidity]

110. that is right-libertarianism. there is a long history of left-libertarianism

that is as concerned with corporate/capitalist power as it is with state power.

[Motown_Johnny]

31. he is further left than anyone else who could possibly be elected

Go with the most liberal (least conservative) possible or lose the white house, your choice

[dreamnightwind]

44. No, I don't think so

He pretended to be further left than anyone else who could be elected, and Americans elected him! So it shows that Americans really will support such a candidate. Too bad it wasn't the real deal. The corporate political complex will always try to divert the people's desire for real change into some pretender who can safely channel that energy without bringing about that change. The people just need a real candidate who will stand up for the people. He/she absolutely can get elected, and the 2008 election proves it, since that's what most thought they were voting for. It was a tremendous demonstration of the positive direction Americans want from their president. Now let's find someone who will fight for us no matter what the obstacles are.

I can tolerate losing. I can't tolerate not fighting for the changes we need. Not fighting means the arguments aren't made, they're not supported, in fact they're subverted. People are told to believe the most ridiculous corporate BS. The entire frame of debate under this POTUS has been absolutely pathetic, he has not lifted one finger for the changes this country truly needs.

[Motown_Johnny]

101. you may not have been paying attention

have you missed....




Two great choices for Supreme Court.

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

The Matthew Shepard Hates Crimes Prevention Act (which they said could not be done)

Children's Health Insurance

Tobacco Regulation

Credit Card Reform

Student Loan Reform

The Stimulus (including the largest tax cut ever, the largest investment in clean energy ever, the single largest investment in education in our country ever)

Health Reform

Wall Street Reform

The New G.I. Bill

The Food Safety Modernization Act (the most expansive food reform bill since the 1930s)

The Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal

The New Start Treaty (even when the (R)s said he would never be able to get it passed)

Locking up over half the loose nuclear material in the world in less than half of his first term, something most (R)s thought impossible.




Most of that list is from The Rachel Maddow Show and is included in this clip
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#4077 ...

In that clip she also estimates that ~85% of what President Obama said he wanted to accomplish in his first term had been accomplished in the first half of his first term.






Have we gotten everything we want? Oh Hell No! But the idea that this guy isn't worth reelecting is simply ridiculous from my point of view.

Remember that once this final campaign is over he doesn't need to worry about running again. His legacy will be his main focus and I am reasonably certain that he will want that legacy to be viewed as being liberal.







Also, who do you suggest might be more liberal and still electable?

[dreamnightwind]

116. No, I've been paying attention

We just disagree. After the election, he'll be free to drop all pretense of being any kind of liberal. He'll move even more solidly into the corporate "center", in a coalition with the "New Dems" and the non-Tea Party Republicans. I'm way past believing he has any interest in any policy I support.

[kctim]

39. Kind of weird to see that here

Since ALL of them are elected by the people and the majority of them are on the right, couldn't that be used to support the theory that the US is a right leaning country?

As MinMan said: bogus.

[EFerrari]

43. So he said but didn't show. And it could be used to support

the idea that our politics are right leaning, which they are, but not the populace since these candidates are not directly chosen, no.

[whatchamacallit]

114. No, if you consider how much more left his campaign was than his presidency has been.

Bait and Switch.

[madrchsod]

41. he`s a old time liberal republican

socially liberal and economically conservative.

[EFerrari]

45. Not all that liberal socially, either.

He was fine with abortion being defunded in the health insurance industry subsidy bill. He's against same sex marriage. He's for the fake drug war.

[Dappleganger]

51. Unfortunately true.

[JoeyT]

46. The truly sad thing about those charts

is what he was promising during the primary and campaign, and virtually all the stuff that moved him to the left or down were outright lies. He'd be considerably further right and up if they recalculated it now.

[EFerrari]

49. It would be an interesting exercise to try now. n/t

[Fuddnik]

47. I know Brian Moore.

Pretty accurate there.

[DFab420]

50. I was going to go through the effort of making my own charts and randomly placing

the Popular Political Cast in in what I believe to be a highly accurate mathematical surgical factually awesome way.....


Then I realize I would be as full of crap as these charts, and decided to do something more constructive with my time..

[EFerrari]

53. Show the chart is wrong. If it is that randomly wrong, should be easy for you. n /t

[DFab420]

57. Like I said.. THe effort involved in randomly placing Obama's name in one section of a chart to

prove a point I was setting out to prove is unproductive and silly.


I mean if I wrote and article discussing how much better the color blue was next to the color orange and had a chart with blue above orange to prove it, it would basically be the same as this chart here.

[EFerrari]

58. Well no, it wouldn't but nice try.

I don't understand if this thing is so far off, why one of you can't demolish it immediately.

[DFab420]

60. OK....

SO how's this

1. SHow me the formula for deciding placement within the graph.
2. Show me who decided, other then this one person, where these people and their policies fit.
3. Show me EVERY. SINGLE. POLICY. CHOICE made by EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. on this list and how that contributed to placement
4. pseudo-Political science does not a factual chart make.

Again, if I started a theory out that say...Apples were better then oranges, then went on to claim that I had taken a bite of every apple, as well as every orange, then listend to what apple farmers had said on tv vs what orange farmers had said on tv. THEN took into account whether or not I personally liked all of them.. I could make a chart with about as much accuracy as this graph here.

Get it? I am forming the chart to match my opinion. Not the other way around...

[EFerrari]

61. So, should I take that as a no?

If the thing is so skewed, you should be able to show that objectively. :)

And the word you want is "pseudo".

[DFab420]

62. Well, thank you for

a) spelling correction

and

b) being so obtuse that you more then proved my "waste of time" theory

[EFerrari]

77. I haven't been obtuse in the least. You haven't shown the chart is wrong. n/t

[stevenleser]

85. You are being obtuse. n/t

[EFerrari]

96. Nope. You people pick at method and have not a thing to say

substantially in response.

But thanks for your gratuitous and unsupported pronouncement. Maybe you've impressed someone else with it.

[onenote]

125. could you direct me to description of the methodology that produced the chart

A statement that the chart reflects public statements, votes, etc. with no discussion of the statistical methodology used to weight and measure these things is pretty much useless.

[progressoid]

108. Try the FAQ

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq

[girl gone mad]

52. His economics aren't even close to moderate.

More like Milton Friedman/Chicago School far right kook.

[kenny blankenship]

56. Nor are his Permawar and Policestate policies

[bananas]

63. I agree, but I didn't want the title to be too inflammatory. nt

[hifiguy]

65. I am old enough to remember Tricky Dick Nixon

and Obama is "governing" well to the right of Nixon (and maybe even Reagan) in terms of domestic policy and identically in terms of foreign policy (remember the Xmas 1972 bombing of North Vietnam?).

Nixon could be excused in part for what he did because he was a paranoid with a huge inferiority complex, mainly about the Kennedys. Now I see no excuses, and the only explanation is that the Current Occupant is nothing but a willing tool of the plutocracy.

[Apollo11]

70. French extreme-right leader claims she is left of Obama

This is from an interview with Marine Le Pen, published last month in The Observer (UK Sunday newspaper owned by The Guardian).

The economic crisis in the European Union has worked to her advantage as well. As a French nationalist and an anti-EU voice, she has called for France to drop the euro and return to the franc. The real secret to her success, however, may be in her adroit scrambling of traditional leftist and rightist positions. Signalling a clear break from her father and the right in general, she has come out with a detailed critique of capitalism and a position promoting the state as the protector of ordinary people. "For a long time, the Front National upheld the idea that the state always does things more expensively and less well than the private sector," she told me. "But I'm convinced that's not true. The reason is the inevitable quest for profitability, which is inherent in the private sector. There are certain domains which are so vital to the wellbeing of citizens that they must at all costs be kept out of the private sector and the law of supply and demand." The government, therefore, should be entrusted with healthcare, education, transportation, banking and energy.

When I pointed out that in the US she would sound like a left-wing politician, she shot back, "Yes, but Obama is way to the right of us."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/26/marine-le-pen-far-right

[Shagbark Hickory]

72. gosh. They're like lonely planets out there. Not many people standing up for us.

[krabigirl]

73. yeah, we should have elected Nader (or kucinich or someone from that left libertarian quadrant.)

:)

[bananas]

78. Obama just said that $650 billion in cuts to Medicare and SS were in the deal.

"The rumors were true
Obama just said that $650 billion in cuts to Medicare and SS were in the deal."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1550589

edit to add another thread:

So he's saying, "We basically agreed to throw you all under the bus but that wasn't good enough for
the Umpa Lumpa."
...
"He said he agreed to wide ss cuts. I just asked a room full
of people and they all said, "Yep. That's pretty much what he just said".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x718569

[Poll_Blind]

106. What an amazingly-fucked situation.

PB

[bananas]

121. Paul Krugman: What Obama Was Willing to Give Away ("Horrifying")

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1557003&mesg_id=1557003

July 23, 2011, 12:07 PM

What Obama Was Willing to Give Away

Jonathan Cohn summarizes what seems to have been in the deal that Boehner walked away from; it’s horrifying. Above all, the proposed rise in the age of Medicare eligibility was a real betrayal of both Democratic principles and good government.

<snip>

[roamer65]

79. He's DLC.

:thumbsdown:

[mfcorey1]

84. Screw this chart. Like Boehner, nothing pleases some. nt

[NeedleCast]

104. LOL, Yeah, and DK is just slightly left and libertarian

Yup, that's an accurate chart all right...

[PATRICK]

105. Chart also shows where the money is but

somehow Ron Paul and other apparent "outsiders" and curmudgeons routinely relegated by the MSM to some sort of Libertarian limbo are placed in the same quadrants as more successful/permitted corporate sponsored representatives. You could sprinkle more names into the left, funded by good guys and grass roots but most of the cash and hence influence is upper right. Poor Mike Gravel. People with some outsider purity feed off the same misdirected anger produced deliberately by the Right, but are not the Chosen and often do not understand they are not "in".

It says a lot about money corruption and a lot about the sorry state of Dem leadership. Ideology seems suspect and authority derives from the centralized sources of non/anti civil society wealth.

[Denver Progressive]

107. k & r

:kick:

[NorthCarolina]

111. I ranked as a Far Left Libertarian here

Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

[FLPanhandle]

112. Kucinich is shown as being close to a centrist in this chart.

I call Bullshit. Any chart where everyone is basically in the same quadrant is bullshit.

[bananas]

124. You should this great post: 'There are NO "Fringe Leftists" posting at DU.'

You don't seem to understand how narrow the US political spectrum has become.
A great post by bvar22 today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1570899&mesg_id=1570899

There are NO "Fringe Leftists" posting at DU.

I have been here daily since February 2001,
and have NEVER read a serious post from a DUer advocating for
the confiscation of all Personal Property,
and having the citizens formed into Collectives to work for the government.
THAT is a "Fringe Left" position.

There ARE some "Fringe leftists" in the USA, but they are a very small minority,
and you won't see them here at DU, or with a voice in the National Media.

Our Media & The Large Corporations who fund it would be happy to have America believe that mainstream FDR/LBJ values
are "The Fringe Left", and are equally "balanced" by the Far Right Tea Party,
because THAT would move the mythological "Center" FAR to the Right.
You will even see that myth propagated at DU.

What you see at DU are the Mainstream-Center Pro-Working Class FDR/LBJ Democrats
advocating FOR traditional Democratic Values.

Attempts to marginalize FDR/LBJ Democrats as the "Fringe Left" only helps move this country further to The RIGHT.
Attempts to draw a False Equivalency between FDR/LBJ Democrats and the Tea Party only helps move this country to The RIGHT.


The following are Traditional Mainstream Democratic Party Values:

<snip>

[Bonn1997]

119. The situation is tragic but the chart does make it clear why

we're better off with Obama than a Republican in office, even though Obama often looks like a Republican.