Monday, November 8, 2010

On Why I Don't Consider President Obama to be a Radical

1) The health care plan of President Obama (while obviously flawed) is essentially the same as Mitt Romney's MA plan, the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett plan (a plan that as many as 9 Republican co-sponsors), and the 1993 Republican alternative to Hillary-care. It did NOT contain a public option and, yes, actually gave more power to the insurance companies.............2) The TARP bailout program that Mr. Obama supported was also supported by President Bush and dozens of Republican Senators.............3) The stimulus package (which I've freely admitted here to be flawed) contained in it some 300 billion dollars in TAX CUTS (a concept that the Republicans usually warmly embrace).............4) The President has sent 30,000 additional troops to the Afghan theater.............5) The President has seriously amped up the drone attacks into Northern Pakistan.............6) The President continues to use rendition, warrentless wire-tapping, and GITMO.............7) The President has shown virtually zero leadership in getting rid of don't-ask/don't-tell.............8) The President has actually INCREASED defense spending.............9) Etc., etc....................................................................................................I mean, don't get me wrong here. President Obama no doubt IS a liberal. But he really doesn't seem appreciably different than a lot of the other mainstream Dems. At least he doesn't seem to be from what is my essentially centrist perspective.


Beach Bum said...

The real fun will begin during the Republican primaries when Sleazy Mitt will be forced to defend his Health Care plan from the likes of Palin. It is something she has already brought up a time or too in her informative and in-depth Facebook posts.(Excuse the dripping sarcasm on that last part.)

Obama is very flawed but I often wish McCain had won just so we could have seen him handle the financial meltdown. At best he and Palin would have done the very same thing, at worst he would have skipped the bailouts on many businesses and we would be in a Depression far worse than the 30's.

Oso said...

IMO you just detailed the hypocrisy of both parties. Obama has essentially put forward a Richard Nixon Center-right Republican platform.

Partisan Republicans try to paint his policy as socialist, it is nothing of the sort. It's crony capitalism which cedes control to whichever portion of the private sector give more in campaign contributions.

The fevered imagination of Partisan Democrats infers a liberal intent or ultimate public benefit from the same policy.

I read you plea for equanimity at Joe's and expressed those sentiments. One gentlemen correctly quoted Ron Paul, who had the courage to stand against war and the military-industrial complex.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Double b, Oso, as a centrist, I probably see the President as a little more liberal than you guys do. But I do think that all three of us agree that the poor frigging guy isn't a pinko - not even close......Oso, I hadn't thought of the Nixon analogy but, yeah, now that I think about it, it's a pretty darn good one; Nixon's attempt at universal health care, his experiment with price controls, etc..

Linda said...

Will ~ I don't think that President Obama's legislation has been blatantly Socialistic, but I do think that given free reign to do as he wished, it would be a lot more leftist. I base that on several interviews done prior to his election when he spoke of the flaws in the Constitution...that it didn't go far enough in saying what government "must do on your behalf." Then there were his comments on "redistribution of wealth."

You must admit, though, that the man knows and associates with a large number of Marxists and avowed Socialists!

I think, with regard to health care, that the government should stay out of it, except to provide regulation so that sick people won't loose their health care (outrageous and criminal in my book.) I also think that those with pre-existing conditions should get help getting affordable insurance. Free market competition would create the best health care (with the above regulations in place.)

I wrote a longer comment earlier, but it disappeared when I clicked the publish comment button. Aaaarrrgggghhhh! Maybe I was too wordy! :0)

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Working off of your list, Linda, Van Jones was definitely a jerk and he should have been fired. Sunstein seemingly sounds questionable, too. But Carol Browner only worked briefly with that Socialist International organization and only as a consultant on climate change issues. Valerie Jarrett's father in law was a Communist sympathizer but I'm not entirely sure how that that tars her. Bill Ayers will be the topic of my next post.....Thanks for stopping by and I'll write more later.

w-dervish said...

I was agreeing with your post until I got to the line where you said, "President Obama no doubt IS a liberal". That's one hell of a non-sequitur, Will.

President Obama is not a radical, NOR is he a liberal. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the reasons you listed explaining why you don't "consider" the president to be a radical is also a reason why he isn't a Liberal.

BTW, I'm curious as to what, exactly, makes Van Jones a "jerk". Personally, I don't think he should have resigned. He was the right man for the job. I've heard him interviewed on a number of radio programs recently, and he seems to be a thoughtful and intelligent person. Not at all a "jerk".