President Obama is nowhere near center right. He's a moderate but clearly he has some significant left leanings on many issues.

He was approached to run as a Democrat, too.

and never experienced the party as it once was. He may lean left on some social issues (some he has had to "evolve" to) but he seems to be fiscally very very conservative. He has filled a slew of positions with republicans when there are multiple Democrats who are just as qualified. I could write a page on it but I don't have the time.

ones for the jobs no matter who they are.

This is the Barack Obama Group as it clearly states in the OP..

For those members of Democratic Underground who support the president and his policies, which you clearly don't. And, that's fine.. there's plenty of other forums for you to explain your positiions. Just not here.

in the proper sense of the term. Almost his entire Presidency has been devoted is saving the Too Big to Fail global banks, big multinational corporations, and federal contractors from the consequences of decades of abuse and excess, or at least to bribe them into not taking their corporate HQ out of the US market. Manufacturing facilities, offices, jobs and profits are free to offshore - after all, he is a thoroughly conventional capitalist and Free Trader.

That's part of the reason he's called center-right. As far as economic, tax and trade policy are concerned, Obama is a moderate conservative.

Did you realize that your are posting in the Barack Obama Group. You have been with DU for years and well know the rules and mission statements.

You said~

That's all you have come away with in the past 4 plus years? That's it, that's what you have concluded about his Presidency? Well that's sad.

So please,

Here at the BOG we rely on reality based information.

Trying to undermine the president and drive wedges.

Last edited Wed Aug 14, 2013, 06:58 PM - Edit history (1)

If there's undermining of grassroots support and wedges being driven, that's rooted in policy outcomes and the rightward creep of the party leadership, not Internet memes.

the internet. Just not in the Barack Obama Group.

President Obama is popular with Liberals who understand that he's a pragmatic progressive President.

what kind of person has an entire message board to spew their anti-Obama bullshit - and yet feels an overwhelming compulsion to spew that bullshit in the one corner of the site where they know they are not welcome to do so?

You might want to ask yourself that some time.

The forum, one would think would be most receptive to such “criticisms from the left” posts …

( http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1024)

Has a combined 165 posts (including, thread initiation posts).

I guess it’s time to start up a libertarian Group … or better yet, maybe they’ll start one up, else where.

Just sayin....

Eating and sleeping are both necessities and a pleasure for the most part. But do you eat in the bedroom and sleep in the kitchen? Or crap in either one? There's a proper time and place for most things, and criticism - especially unfounded and snappish - does not belong in a group specifically dedicated to support of the president's policies. But then you know that and simply choose to offend. So kindly take your next crap in GD - unless you feel so far above everyone else that you feel entitled to dump in their living room anytime you please. I'm NOT impressed.

I am guessing you are a recent Democrat or unaware of our party before 1980, it was far more liberal on education,labor and economic issues then the party today, the party used to be at least somewhat protectionist and much more pro environment but most of those issues are now in the green party because the democratic party has moved right on those things i mentioned.


I like Obama and i think hes doing great on social issues, but everything else i care about he leans farther right then the party 30 years ago. Clinton was this way too.

feel better to throw out ignorant labels on President Obama. Willfully ignoring what Progress has happened. You know, reality.

"Obama's approval rating with liberal dems is still over 80%"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023463537

President Obama is a Pragmatic Progressive. That's the way to get things done when you have to deal with regressive idiots.

#Obama'sapprovalratingwithliberaldemsisstillover80%

his own party would have shot him.

Obama Is a moderate.While he may be a little too cozy to corporations and a little too willing to keep some,not all,or practices of government from Bush era.He's more to the left than Bill Clinton.He's an ultraLiberal compared to Bush or any Republican.

Calling Obama on the right Is crazy.

You are right, they never give this President credit for his accomplishments. Not ever. Nor will they ever acknowledge that his approval rating with Liberals is over 80%. It does not fit their agenda.

did not bring complete and perfect change within 10 minutes of his presidency and does not pass laws by himself and instead requires congress to pass the laws.

those calling him that:

1) Live in a world that doesn't exist; and/or,

2) Are as "leftist" as the noise-makers at the 2009 Town Halls are rightists ... and equally as organic.

Did you mean 'organic' or 'moronic'? I suppose either applies equally.

Yup!

For them, liberalism in all its forms is anathema and the Democratic Party and Obama in particular are the greatest obstacle to their taking control of this country.



Does a liberal, as most of the self-proclaimed uber lefties, ignore women, minority and voting rights?

You will never hear a peep on that. Examples of core differences follow and why anyone who claims they are liberal and PBO is not are not being honest. When they claim that Libertarians like Rand, Greenwald and Snowden are the real Liberals, ask them these questions, and you will have your answer:

Is taking down the federal government, not paying taxes, following the Tenther Movement and 2nd Amendment Solution crowd a liberal value?

I say no, we believe in working in government to stop oppressive actions and we believe in paying for it, and do not believe in States Rights or the Tenther Movement that would deny human rights accrding to the whims of regressive state legislatures who don't believe in the supremacy of the US Constituion over their local laws. We hold that the government of the USA is what we make it and made to serve all of us equally, no matter what the powerful say it should. We do not want to see our nation devolved into fifty different fiefdoms run by the richest, establishing conditions better suited to the plantation system.

Is getting rid of all the New Deal programs, a liberal value?

And except to complain, do such ever really want to work to keep the social safety net, help for the poor, elderly and sick; do or do they want the end of the public schools, parks, hospitals, healthcare, the regulation of banks and businesses; are ending the rights of labor like child labor, sweat shops, and a minimum wage; standing by while the rights of women, minortiies and emigrants are attacked a liberal value?

No, destroying those are clearly libertarian values.

Is constantly attacking the Democratic Party and its officials, demeaning those who work for change by using it as a platform, but ignoring the Republican obsructionism and blatant theft of rights across this country, even of freedom of the body and mind, and saying that voting does no good, the government is a complete evil to be eliminated, that both parties are the same, and every public service from the police and fire department, postal service are all out to steal freedom and kill us. that schools are there to indoctrinate us, are those liberal values?

I say, no, they are all the values of the Libertarian, JBS, and Tea Party. If these people claiming they are the true liberals, they have decided that liberal means liberty and libertarianism and the kind of liberalism of the Democratic Party is a scam. I assure you, it is not a scam nor is it dead.

great point and clarification of liberalism vs libertarianism.

The only thing I'll say as a guest in your group is that I vehemently disagree with much of what you've written here.

Except Libertarians pretending to be actual Democrats here would just ignore it, and find a new angle to attack from.

I.e., if the person isn't ready to overthrow the government as a dictator, then they are dismissed.

directly above mine. Someone who doesn't have a clue what's been going on for the last 4 1/2 years.. but, sure doesn't mind jumping around the board acting like it does.

Progressives have to deal with this kind of regressiveness as well as gops. If you don't acknowledge ALL the Good that's been gonig on what good are ya?

Here’s a List of 212 Obama Accomplishments, With Citations!

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009/

President Obama's Record on Helping Our Poor.. Reasons to really turn their collective nose up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110212904

Last edited Sun Feb 8, 2015, 02:31 PM - Edit history (2)

The 'Obama and Dems had complete control and did nothing before 2010' myth:

From alp and Tx4obama:

We didn't have a majority in congress for two years - more like TWO MONTHS

The meme that the “Democrats had control of the House and Senate” is a myth and here’s why: people keep forgetting that you need 60 to have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

January 20, 2009 – Edward Kennedy suffered a seizure during Barack Obama's inaugural luncheon, and his health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts. Also, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota had not been seated because the previous Senator, Norm Coleman challenged the election results. So on his inauguration Obama had 57 elected Democratic Senators… 55 Democrats and 2 Independents.

April 28, 2009 – Arlan Specter switches parties from Republican to Democratic. This gives the Democrats 58… 56 seated Democrats, 2 Independents. Al Franken still hasn’t been sworn in and Kennedy is sick. Still no 60 member majority.

May 15, 2009 – Senator Robert Byrd is admitted to the hospital reducing the number of Democratic votes to 57… 55 Democrats, 2 Independents.

July 7, 2009 – Senator Al Franken is sworn in bringing the Democratic votes back up to 58… 56 sitting Democrats, 2 Independents. No Senator Kennedy or Byrd due to illness.

July 21, 2009 – Senator Byrd Returns to the Senate making the count 59 seats – Still no Kennedy.

August 25, 2009 – Senator Kennedy dies and the seat remains vacant (for one full month) until…

September 24, 2009 – Interim Senator Paul Kirk is sworn in to fill Kennedy’s seat bringing the total Democratic votes to a filibuster proof majority of 60.

Remember to subtract the time/weeks (which total over a month) for the Senate's fall recess, Thanksgiving break, Christmas/NewYears break, etc.

February 4, 2010 - Scott Brown (R-MA) is sworn in taking over Senator Kennedy's seat.

So really the Democrats only had a little more than two months (total time when Senate was in session) of a majority in the Senate – not 2 years (even less when you consider that Senator Lieberman sided with the Republicans most of the time). Because they didn’t have a majority, nothing could be automatically pushed through the Senate and concessions had to be made on the healthcare legislation in order for the bill to pass.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021643154#post3

That is something most of us remember as we kept up with all of those elections, very concerned about majority to get Obama's agenda through. It's also why I consider such comments either ignorant as they didn't pay attention, or dishonest.

After reading repeat versions of this with no response to facts but seeing the same posters go to other threads to spread the same, I quit wasting my time.

The 'Obama, corporate lackey' myth:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022832448

This being spread about the man who immediately went after corporations who were hiding their asserts over seas to hysterical attacks in media for doing so; declared energy corporations should not be subsidized and signed every alternative energy bill he was able to get; brought Elizabeth Warren to serve as head of an agency to protect citizens from corporate tyranny; and on and on.

Also to hear this about a man who spoke against Citizens United immediately, but knowing the law said it required a grassroots movement to make a Constitutional amendment, which is done at the state level and not the federal, as Congress can only write a motion but not make it happen; and has repeatedly tried to raise corporate taxes by any means he could, including fighting the Tea Party who refused to allow the sunsetting of the Bush Tax Cuts to take place, with a complicit media calling it a Tax Hike. It was passed when the GOP controlled all three branches of government, not under Obama. It was part of his recovery plan to make the more wealthy pay more. He's reiterated and proposed it at every SOTU and all of the campaigns he's been on; but he can't do it alone.

Some have picked names out of the news and declared him a stooge of corporations for when there is a reason to talk to banks and corporations, one of them being the billions of dollars lost in the last GOP shut down of the government. Obama walked from the White House to talk to the Federal Reserve to stop it from happening again and it was said that he was cozying up with the evil (passed by a law of Congress, yet evil) Federal Reserve. Eliminating it is a Pauliban meme, they want it gone so there is no control of the private banks at all meaning deregulation, not prosecution, so the irony is thick with that one. It's also been the Koch agenda since 1980, how very liberating.

Yes, the bankers are the ones who told the GOP to STFU and not pull that stunt again, or else they'd pay dearly for it in ways that most of us likely don't comprehend. And some don't know FDR's famous 'I welcome their hatred' speech was spoken before he knew the Axis might actually win WW2 and had to go to those same people to create the big production assembly lines to defeat the Nazis. The Allies were suffering greatly both with lives and financially in comparison with the Axis, who in comparison, lost only a fraction. That great effort was what framed our present world like it or not. Else we would have been nothing more than slaves to the Reich. No one should doubt what we faced in those days.

It was by sheer numbers that this was done and the Allies with American production won the war as our part of the alliances we had. I'll not that FDR did employ private firms to do New Deal government work, it wasn't all a socialist utopia of all working for the government. Did that make his administration's work to create a social democracy null and void, or did it work?

Regarding that mean old Obama and leaks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022862201

I could go on about it, but that's just a few hints.

Politics.

Nixon started EPA. He was no lefty.
I could never imagine him supporting gays in the military or giving them 2 weeks to have time with they're SO.
Obama is practical, he trys to do what he can, with what he's got. And he doesn't read minds or come to our parties. He's no bully so his bully pulpit is gathering dust. He's not their boy.
He does a lot considering how much recovery time he's needed after being thrown under a bus every few days. Imagine his co-pays if he didn't have a White House doctor on staff.

If you really want to know, you'll have to ask somewhere other than BOG. The people you are asking about, if they want to respect your safe haven, won't be able to give you an answer here.

The answer is ignorance.. willful and otherwise.

They were asking to understand. Asking someone who DOESN'T hold a particular point of view to explain that point of view really doesn't lend itself to understanding. It's like listening to Rush to understand democrats.

We're fully capable of supplying the answers. For instance going into a group where you don't belong and spouting off about fucking "rush" as an analogy. Which btw doesn't mean shite coming from.

that BOGers are ignorant, incompetent, and/or liars?

How bleepin' arrogant! I can't tell you to do it, but I wouldn't be surprised if you choke on your own hubris.

And BTW, I'll bet your house nobody's buying your false claim of respecting this group's TOS. What you said is just a sneaky and less than honorable or courageous way of violating decent conduct. Sort of like sneaking up to your worst enemy and whispering "I can't tell you here and now that you have body odor, but let's meet after school and I'll explain it to you."

Sheesh! The noive!

What I'm saying, rather plainly, is that the question being asked really can't be answered by anyone actually holding those points of view, within the rules of the group in which the question was placed. If all they want to hear is the opinions of people who DON'T hold those points of view, they're fine. But if they actually want a discourse with people who DO hold those points of view, they'll have to discuss it in a different group.

At best it's talking down from someone who seems to consider him/herself on a loftier plane than us proles.

At worst, which is where I consider it to be, it's also a far less than courageous way of making a point. If you're in such need of discussing this further with a poster, why not simply msg him/her AND THEN YOU'LL ONLY BE INSULTING ONE PERSON INSTEAD OF EVERYONE! Don't worry, we all know where to find you should we ever desire your input. Do yourself a favor, though, and don't hold your breath waiting. No one person is so important that everyone HAS to hear everything they want to say, and if that were the case in the first place, that person WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO KICKING PEOPLE'S SHINS TO GET THEIR ATTENTION.

It's a public discussion forum. It was really an invitation to take it to a forum where it could actually be answered and discussed. I'm not sure where the controversy is in that suggestion. Could they already have known that? Possibly, but that possibility doesn't preclude reminding someone in case it escaped their notice.

In golf, the rules of ettiquette state that one is suppose to remind a competitor of a rule if you believe they might be about to break it, even if they know the rules.

Sooner or later somebody's bound to make you a golf club necklace. We're fully functioning adults in this group and really don't need troll visits to inform us of how the outside world works. Were you a hall monitor in another life or something? No, you're just lurking around to insult people, and if that makes you proud, well I wouldn't want to live your life.

Now this is the last I have to say on the matter. Mind your manners unless you want to be blocked from posting in this group. Been known to happen.

that train has left the station.

I can only say ...

I don’t know where you learned the game (or rules) of golf; but I would love to face you in the final round of the Club Championship or a $100/hole Skins Game.

The offering of advice is explicitly prohibiting and subjects the “reminder” to a loss of Hole (in match play – Skins) or a 2 stroke penalty in stroke play. http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-08/

Just cuz you say it with authority doesn’t make it a fact.

Kind of a silly OP. If only BOGers are allowed to answer, you probably won't read about privatizing education, abandoning organized labor and teachers, proposing SS benefit cuts, signing off on KeystoneXL, increasing drilling, extending the top-heavy Smirk tax cuts, prosecuting pot smokers instead of banksters....you know, conservative stuff. he is ideologically closer to Boner and Paul Ryan than he is to Grayson and Warren - center-right

of gathering information from various quarters on his own. I doubt he needs trolls or 'libertarians' or faux liberals of any sort to guide him along the way. When he asks a question here, it might be a particular vantage point he wishes to utilize along with others from different sources. Not seeking a cacaphony of competing viewpoints in one particular place compliments his discretion. It is not a silly OP, although your reply certainly qualifies.

If I want information about gourmet cooking, I don't ask a plumber (although the plumber might be an excellent chef, but that's beside the point.). Is that clear?

Is because you're an intelligent, thoughtful, decent person. Once you get rid of any notion that conservatives resemble you in any way, or even some of the self proclaimed, alleged left, you can stop trying to make sense of intellectual porn. I think a lot of them really believe what they say, but then the rest could be just deliberately throwing smokescreens - anything to defeat or weaken the forces of truth and justice, y'know. Silly, dangerous twits, the lot of them. If some of those people were half as liberal as they claim to be, they'd have better sense. It just goes with the territory.

For example you start with a position that you would be happy to have a candidate who opposed the Iraq War.

and after each step the bar rises:

No longer enough candidate must be for an end of the war.

After that is achieved then for a date certain withdrawal date.

After that is achieved then it is for an immediate withdrawal.

After that is achieved then it is for a date certain withdrawal from Afghanistan.

After that is achieved then it is for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.

After there are no more troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan then looking back it is perceived as being easy to do and no big thing and the President accomplished very little really.

Of course a decade from now when we are under a Republican President then these will be remembered as the "good old days" when progressives worked together to end the wars.

And the same goes for Health care and so on.

About 4 ½ years ago, the game changed from “rising expectations” to “purity perfection.” To your example, many start with the proposition of not being happy with a candidate who is opposed to the Iraq War; but rather, “I will only support a candidate that end all wars … yesterday! Anything short of that is evidence that they are not a REAL Democrat.”

The same goes for Healthcare (single-payer) and so on.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/february/23/gop-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

That is not left. In 1993, it was considered right wing corporate sponsorship.

Don't get me wrong, the AFA is better then what we had, but it isn't "Left." The development of a pure free market solution using large commercial Health Insurance firms to solve healthcare problem is center to center right, at best. A "Left" solution would have been something like Medicare for all. A Center left solution would have been the Public Option that setup a very basic low cost federal health care choice that would lower prices of the more pricey commercial players.

Want to know where he stands, evaluate his policies.

President Obama started with what could get done by Congress and it's a strong foundation to build on.

This is the Barack Obama Group and we make it a point to see where he stands unlike those who wanted the magic of Public Option without the votes to pass it.

Who cares what it was in 1993? This is now and Obamacare is making a lot of People Happy who couldn't afford any insurance.

Words mean nothing, only actions. His actions in health-care was to support and propose a center-right solution. (The Public option was never even given a vote on the floor.) As for trying things that won't pass. How many times have Republicans passed a bill to end "Obamacare?" If they can tilt 47 times at a fucking windmill, we could have tilted once. Another model for the bill is the Massachusetts law, also center-right. He set out to pass a center-right bill and got it.

Glad he did it, because the system is better than it was. But socialism it isn't. It is a Center-right bill that will, over the next decades need a lot of changes to make it a workable solution for everyone.

What signature policy from the center-left has he put through. (There is only one I know of.) He didn't start out supporting it. What is it?

Go spout your theories to those who will have Obamacare now and to those who will now have cheaper healthcare.

if we had only held out they might have gotten single-payer ... or nothing!

I love magical thinking ... especially when that thinking starts with "If only" and then proceeds as if that "if only" is the fact of the matter.

I sooo wish us "liberals" would go back to the time when the facts informed our opinions. But that was so 4 1/2 years ago.

begs the question.. who are these people? Beside magic wand truthers?

"If we had only held out" for what? 2010? 2012? 2014? We are so fortunate we got what we got when we got it. And, it's driving the asshole republicons mad.. and it seems other factions, too.

Mind Picture: A person holed in a basement ... typing up stuff furiously ... getting (the same 14) people saying , "Yup ... Yup, that!", utterly convinced that those 14 people somehow represented the rest of the world.

Remember when that picture made Democrats at this site laugh?

Remember when calling them Trolls wasn't a problem ... because they knew they were in fact, trolls?

It could be the Lilly Ledbetter Act … he supported that from the start.

It couldn’t be the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or maybe Dodd-Frank … he supported that from the start, too.

What about the extensions of U/C … Nope, can’t be that.

It couldn’t be the end of DADT … he supported that on from the gate, as well.

Oh … you must be talking about DOMA!

Obama do you anti creeps don't get. I would like to request that the moderators start issuing bans to folks who insist on bringing their anti Obama BS in this thread. You want to talk smack about the President, take it to GD and start all the threads you want. You are the main reason why I don't like coming online to hang out any more. You suck all the air out of the room then act like we don't have a right to praise the President in our own group.

I'm so disgusted with this place some days.

The whole part is a safe haven. All those anti-Obama posters you've seen have been blocked. They won't be back.

It's an ongoing process.

Thanks for posting, CR

Thanks Cha!

This is not aimed at you buddy. I am replying to the idiots who take delight at taking jabs at the President thinking they have the right to come in here and post their personal attacks but then hide it as their being critical

Next question?