Obama moves to the right - disappointed??

I can't say I'm disappointed, as that would imply that I held out (much) hope that he is actually as liberal as he has often been described/smeared as, but still, this kind of thing is depressing. Makes me miss Kucinich that much more!

Great article describing his recent shifts:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/10/14336/0567

:(
 
Dennis couldn't win.These are the kind of things that all candidates do in an effort to appeal to the vast mushy moderates in the middle.To be honest I am not so sure exactaly what Obama would do as president on many issues but I do know we won't find out unless he wins.This roll of the dice can't be any worse though then the last one which is what GWB was.He was relatively a blank slate as well and with his rhetoric about being a compasionate conservative and the legacy of his father who was seen as a somewhat more sensible pub not nearly as dogmatic as someone like a Reagan, I think most never imagined GWB would turn out to be what he became. A cut taxes for the rich tool of right wing neo-cons on a mission from god to fix the world.:bowdown::eek:
 
I think most never imagined GWB would turn out to be what he became.

The wannabe cowboy/born-again Christian combo had me freaked out from the get go.

I got an ominous sense he was spoiling for a fight from the time he took office, and sure enough an incident developed with China shortly thereafter. Small potatoes compared to what would follow, as Bin Laden completely understood the psychology of his foe and played him like a fiddle.

As for Obama. Nope, not disappointed. As Friday mentioned his first priority is winning, which imo is anything but a foregone conclusion.
 
Just one simple thing, can Obama fix the gas price?

During our political discussion group, someone mentioned the high price may actually help Obama to win and then after the Presidency starts, the price of gas will go down somewhat. I hope it is true !
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
As has already been pointed out, once they have captured their party's nomination, most nominees move somewhat toward the center in order to attract swing voters. Obama is simply following the Clinton tactic that was tremendously successful in gaining independent voters when he ran (and won) for president in 1992 and 1996. Obama has already shown himself to be an extremely shrewd politician and this is simply another example.

McCain, however, has a much different dilemma. He is already viewed by the extreme right as being too liberal, hence his recent tough talk about immigration, the war in Iraq, abortion, etc. Yet, he probably has an opportunity to attract a percentage of disgruntled Hillary supporters who would likely vote for him if he moved just a little bit more in their direction. Problem is, he can't risk alienating the right wing so my guess is he'll continue to move more to the right as this campaign ensues. Obama's "50-state strategy" and recent foray into historically republican enclaves like Montana and North Dakota will force McCain to remain in a defensive posture, precluding any temptation he might have to try to move more toward the center. McCain is beginning to look more and more like Bob Dole to me.

Advantage: Obama.
 
Check the last time ...

Just one simple thing, can Obama fix the gas price?
Check the last time a US President enacted "price controls" and what happened. ;)
 
Failed math ... once again!

A cut taxes for the rich tool of right wing neo-cons on a mission from god to fix the world.:bowdown::eek:
Thank you for once again failing math!

The "rich" (high income earners) always get at least as much of a "tax cut" as the poor and middle class (lower income earners) in a "progressive" tax system whereby brackets are paid by all in it, as well as above. ;)

Unless you mean, of course, "tax credit."
A "tax credit" is an entitlement, not a "tax cut."
 
My problem is that he hasn't just moved his rhetoric to the right, he's actually MOVED there, with one particularly glaring example be his lame sell-out on telecoms immunity in the FISA bill. That's not just talk, that's not just "get tough on crime" jabber to reassure the right, this is giving the right, in substance, precisely what they wanted. And that's a problem. I see it as liberals and the left are being played just as Bush & co. played the religious far-right. Except Bush just "failed" to outlaw abortion outright, he didn't liberalize abortion laws (for example). Obama isn't just letting the left down on vague promises after he gets into office, he's selling them out - in some cases quite dramatically - before he even moves into the Oval Office.
 

Facetious

Moderated
My problem is that he hasn't just moved his rhetoric to the right, he's actually MOVED there,

All politically oriented threads must now be posted in "games".


It's really a sight to see just how much jealousy has permeated the ranks of black liberal leadership in this nation. I'm not so sure that o'bama will actually be celebrated by his community if becoming elected as pres - o - th - divided states.

Obama would essentially put all of the civil rights, victim mentality folk out of business in becoming the president. WTF is racketeer - jesse jack gonna claim in his next tirade ? Certainly nothing in ref to a black mans' inability to become considered as a serious candidate for president of the u.s. ! :1orglaugh

Funny funny funny ! Observing j jack, you almost come to the conclusion that the man has tribal tendencies ! Goway ! Get outta here already :1orglaugh


On another note - YOU should be embarrassed that you're single lingual ! You potty mouthed Americans ! :thefinger
 
It's really a sight to see just how much jealousy has permeated the ranks of black liberal leadership in this nation. I'm not so sure that o'bama will actually be celebrated by his community, if becoming elected as pres - o - th - divided states.
I don't know if it's "jealousy," but it surely is "political manuvering" and even "backstabing" at times.
Bill Cosby's comments regarding Colin Powell's treatment at times come to mind.

Obama would essentially put all of the civil rights, victim mentality folk out of business, in becoming the president.
It does put a rather large "dent" into a lot of the claims, which are further pushed by the most racist/sexist industry we have, the US media.
It doesn't surprise me one bit where most political loyalties lie in these areas, given the amount of racism and sexism that is still apart of their daily routine.

All while women are taking over most of corporate America and, while still feeling the affects of educational segregation several generations later, the "wealth redistribution" is still improving for African Americans.
It is particularly funny to see some of the African American leadership first enlist the "other minorities" for their cause, then "scorn" them as not being worthy of the same benefits.

Frankly, other than trying to address the denial of education that African Americans suffered (which screws anyone for generations), we're not going to solve anything by arguing as anything other than a pool of Americans with their own, individual creeds and goals.
Ironically enough, Obama (not sure about his wife though) gets this better than any African American leader I've ever seen, and that's one thing he hasn't waivered from.

For that and not just that alone, I like him far more than McCain, who has waffled on far more issues (from defense to the tax cuts, of which he seems to not even been any conservative at all like he claims).
I like to know what I'll get from a candidate, not what they want to say to get elected, and in that regard, Obama has waivered far less than McCain (although Obama's still waivered too much overall).

With the "Republican turned Libertarian" candidate who is a joke in his voting history, I probably won't be voting for President this fall.
If I end up voting for anyone, it will be Obama before anyone else, but at this point, I disagree with just one too many of Obama's ideas.
 
Re: Failed math ... once again!

Thank you for once again failing math!

The "rich" (high income earners) always get at least as much of a "tax cut" as the poor and middle class (lower income earners) in a "progressive" tax system whereby brackets are paid by all in it, as well as above. ;)

Unless you mean, of course, "tax credit."
A "tax credit" is an entitlement, not a "tax cut."


Another subject you are showing your ignorance on! It is entirerly possible to reduce or increase tax burden on one group of tax payers while not effecting the others.You can easily make the top rate less or more without any effect on the middle and lower incomes.Is that really so hard to grasp?:dunno:
 

Facetious

Moderated
The man has clearly demonstrated his tendency of being a true, class A, walking, in the flesh, amerikan, psychopolitikal . .


Apologist !

Is there xa n y t h i n g x of which this nation could be proud of ? Can he address anything other than grievance ? :updown: :spin:

Michelle - no ! not up until recently :rolleyes:
 
Failed math ... once again ... redux!

Another subject you are showing your ignorance on! It is entirerly possible to reduce or increase tax burden on one group of tax payers while not effecting the others.You can easily make the top rate less or more without any effect on the middle and lower incomes.Is that really so hard to grasp?:dunno:
And middling with the upper bracket doesn't help the lower brackets at the same time.
Ergo, a tax cut always helps the higher income earners at least as much as the lower.
So if your complaint is about "tax cuts helping the rich" (high income earners), then there's a 100% change you will always complain. ;)

Let's face it, what you want is a tax credit, as noted in your other posts, as well as ways to "redistribute wealth" (not = to high income earners).

Frankly, I don't know why they don't just push the standard deductions higher, causing more people to pay 0%, and then just flatten it above.
Yes, that would probably cause people like me to pay more than people who earn 10x as much as me, but it's the only "fair" system I know of.
Because every $1 in discretionary income has an equal chance to become an investment in new jobs.

I measure "fair" in its ability to create jobs, not some unobjective non-sense.

The only way to be "fair" in your speak is "redistribution of wealth" and raising income tax brackets attacks 0 wealth.
You brought up the "tax cuts" in this thread, not me, so don't you (or your friends) go off running to the mods that I'm being "off topic."
God I'm tired of that.
 
I'm kind of waiting to see a president in the 20s.
I mean, Britain had a fabulous Prime Minister in the last ages of the 1700s called William Pitt, and he was only 24.
 
Ahhh, just a small note ...

I'm kind of waiting to see a president in the 20s.
I mean, Britain had a fabulous Prime Minister in the last ages of the 1700s called William Pitt, and he was only 24.
You might want to read the US Constitution before repeating that thought again in the future, just FYI.
That's one of the smaller reason why I recommend people study the civics of a country before commenting on that country. ;)
 
Top