Obama has charisma. I will definitely give him that. He is probably the best campaigner out there. I can admire that but, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking he is a “moderate” or a “uniter”. He is the most partisan of politicians. Look at the latest ratings from the non partisan National Journal:
“Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings.”
…
“On foreign policy, for example, Obama’s liberal score of 92 and conservative score of 7 indicate that he was more liberal in that issue area than 92 percent of the senators and more conservative than 7 percent.”
…
“Obama garnered perfect liberal scores in both the economic and social categories. His score in the foreign-policy category was nearly perfect liberal”
Obama is way ahead with my generation, the media and popular personas perpetuate this every day but, I think our generation will cheat ourselves and our posterity if we fall for Obama’s charisma while ignoring his extremist, harmful policies.
Given, this may not effect the average college students’ choice but, just remember that as we go to the polls, a vote for Obama is not a vote for some star powered moderate who will unite us all, it’s a vote for the most extreme liberal in the Senate.
Last 5 posts by Brandon- The Graphic Effect of High Taxes and Spending, Move on out! - June 16th, 2010
- Live from the 2010 Wisconsin GOP Convention - May 22nd, 2010
- Republican Party of Wisconsin State Convention 2010 - May 21st, 2010
- Charts: Artificial American Recovery? - April 15th, 2010
- Liberal Professor to Teach FUELMilwaukee "Government 101" - April 14th, 2010
Tags: Barack Obama, Extreme Liberal
Brandon, most of my fellow students here at Knox already know that. And that just makes them happier to vote for him. Clinton is a conservative proxy on too many issues–including but not limited to the war, her praise of Reagan and Bush I as “some of my favorite presidents,” and, recently, her Rovian campaigning style in general. And, unsurprisingly, after eight years of disaster under Bush, none of us want to bring in Bush Lite…and for that, you conservatives have no one to blame but yourself.
By the way, did you ever decide who you’re backing since Fred Thompson flopped? You might want to figure that out before worrying your pretty little head about those of us who already know what we want.
What is “liberal” on foreign policy these days?
A look at the votes used to compile the foreign policy ranking –
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/...../votes.htm
shows that almost all of the tell-tale votes selected by the editors were about Iraq. And Obama didn’t vote on many that comprised the remainder (Peruvian Free Trade and labeling an Iranian entity a terrorist org.).
I would submit that unfailing support for the War in Iraq is not necessarily and dispositively indicative of a “conservative” foreign policy.
I’m not denying that Obama is a liberal on foreign policy (and I certainly don’t deny he’s liberal on domestic issues); I just don’t think the sampling framework employed here sets the right standard for making that judgment.
Early on, Obama was actually more prescient on the problem of China as a rising geopolitical competitor nation – both economically and militarily – than any of the GOP competitors who were focused almost exclusively on Terror-related issues.
There are many other foreign affairs issues I’d like to pin him down on before making a full judgment.
It’s no surprise the liberal students at Knox are fine with an extreme lefty. It’s the rest of the moderate, independent and conservative students and level-headed citizens in the US that will not be ok with it.
And as far as Fred goes, I posted on my thoughts behind his candidacy, I believe he was the best candidate and I will have to make my decision going forward.
Brandon, you are being foolish. Obama has a more liberal record. And… Pay attention to what he wants to do. He wants to be moderate. He is recieving Independent and Republican votes, not because he has fooled them with rhetoric, but because he actually means to be moderate. This may be shocking, but there are good people in the world trying to make this country better. Obama is one of them.
Many, many, many Republicans are disgusted with who they have to vote for. Some are seriously considering a Democrat. Some will not vote for Obama because enough news organizations (FOX) have spread rumours that he attended a Muslim school, or is a sleeper agent who will be “soft” on terror. Others will not vote for him, merely, because his name is Obama Hussien Barack. But a small part of me believes that many may see past the ridiculousness and vote for someone that actually cares about them.
He is not trying to be more moderate, look at the trend in the article. He has trended more liberal every year he was in the Senate. 16th, 10th, 1st. I would hate to see where that trend leads in the White House.
And if he actually cared about anyone, he would lower taxes and decrease spending (something he would avoid completely). Democrats and some independents all to often associate care with increased spending on a given area. Conservatives know that the only way to truly care for the American people is to get out of the way and let them succeed.
Except that, as the country has already seen, independents and moderates ARE ok with it…exactly because neoconservativism was such a flop that they’re leery about anything that smacks of conservativism. And Clinton does…not to mention McCain and Romney. That really leaves you just one option. As for level-headed, the Democratic primaries will determine who level-headed citizens ultimately back.
Fred Thompson never took his candidacy seriously–he’s the only candidate I’ve ever seen who looked happier while withdrawing than at any point in his campaign. I can see how that might be attractive (after all, anyone who actually wants the presidency is automatically a suspicious character), but it was doomed from the get-go. If he couldn’t even bring himself to care, why should anyone else?
I believe in decreasing government spending. (As a side note: Do you believe President Bush has decreased government spending?)I believe that we have tax dollars wasted too. However, as has been true for a long, long time…they all raise taxes. Governemnt spending has not gone done and it cannot. There are essential government programs that are needed to keep things going and because of increased population growth more Federal money is needed. Republicans run on platforms of decreased taxes. I have found over and over again Republicans supporting increases in taxes. Why? Because there isn’t enough money where it needs to be, and too much money going away to useless programs (some of which these “Republicans” are involved with). Lower taxes is great, if the government finds a way to make up for the lost revenue. If not, decreased taxes are disastrous. You cannot cut taxes and increase spending and expect a balanced pocket book. [As another side note: Do you approve of President Bush's tax cuts with his increased spending?] What do you think of Cheney’s comment: “Debts don’t matter.” Explain that as fiscal responsibility.
I agree that there must be much liberty in the way people go about thier day to day business. But imagine if the FED didn’t exist, or imagine no regulatory agency that checks to see if firms are balancing thier accounts correctly. Imagine (actually no imagining necessary; just about how things are) no standards for how our drugs work. Ideally, those firms that are corrupt or unable to make the grade will leave the market. Under Clinton and Bush there has been much deregulation. Congress decided on allowing the free market to function fairly unrestricted. Now, tell me what has been the result.
What if the American people decide that the way they want to succeed is by the right regulations with the right taxes in the income brackets with more government spending on essential services?
http://www.economist.com/blogs.....umbers.cfm
Another grain of salt to take with the rankings.
Brad V- Good article from the economist, I would agree that the rankings can be disputed but, when it comes right down to it, they are a good way to gauge whether a Senator conforms to their party or really is a “uniter”.
The rankings making it glaringly evident that Obama is just your run of the mill, hard core Democrat when it comes to his actual votes. He is a great campaigner and talks a big game but doesn’t actually do it in the Senate (unite that is). Then again, it’s pretty hard to do when you have only been in teh Senate for 3 years and you have been running for President most of the time…
Richard-
1. I agree with you that Republicans have spent too much.
2. I don’t think that government has to expand and I think many of the programs and entitlements we have are a drag on the American people.
3. I don’t like debt or the deficit, Bush should have cut taxes and the useless programs of #2 along with reforming entitlements (privatizing social security and supporting HSAs)
4. “Imagine (actually no imagining necessary; just about how things are) no standards for how our drugs work:” What does this mean?
5. “Congress decided on allowing the free market to function fairly unrestricted. Now, tell me what has been the result.” The result has been positive overall, our economy has been prospering for the last 3 years despite the negativity in the media. The free market adjusts sometimes and that is what is happening now.
Kat-
“Except that, as the country has already seen, independents and moderates ARE ok with it”
It has not been as glaringly obvious as it is now with a non-partisian agency revealing what he has actually done versus what he says he will do.
“Fred Thompson never took his candidacy seriously–he’s the only candidate I’ve ever seen who looked happier while withdrawing than at any point in his campaign”
Nice try. He didn’t withdraw with a speech so he couldn’t have “looked happier”, he withdrew with a short release. He withdrew like he ran, focused, direct and to the point. Not full of showmanship and rhetoric like Obama. He actually had a record, you knew what he would do because he had done it in the past: lower taxes, support our defense and limit government.
With a ranking from a non-partisan organization that shows Obama has the most liberal record out there, we now understand why his charisma and rhetoric are so important: his record shows he is little more than your average hardcore Democrat.
Change. “Yes we can! Yes we can!”
I apologize if my point was poorly stated. It was unimportant. However, back to my free market comment. At this point you are aware of our current credit crisis. You are aware that many banks have been reckless in the manner that they have been giving loans. There are many drugs on the current market that are unsafe because of the lack of regulation. You are aware that their has never been an era, since the time of the anti-trust cases, of such outrageous fraud starting with Enron. You should be aware that many of these illicit happenings would have been less likely if the SEC didn’t have its balls squeezed by Congress, who have maemebrs who happen to benefit from the lack of regulation.
The free market is great. But, the problem I have come to realize is that people will act unethical if there are consequences for their actions. Adam Smith made a great work of art when he wrote The Wealth of Nations. He also explained that corporations are very likely to break the rules if there is no oversight of some kind. I happen to be reading it now, and our current econmic system does not reflect the vision of capitalism that Adam Smith wanted. Mostly, because people are behaving unethically.
Obama is extremely liberal. I am not, but that doesn’t mean he is a bad person to have in office. As things are now, he will not make it. McCain will probably pull it off, but who really believes what he says anymore?
“There are many drugs on the current market that are unsafe because of the lack of regulation.” – I see no evidence of this. Look to Europe, they have far more regulations yet more experimental drugs. I don’t think this argument holds water.
“You are aware that many banks have been reckless in the manner that they have been giving loans. ” – Yes, and right now the free market is punishing them. If they fail they deserve it because of their irresponsible lending.
“our current econmic system does not reflect the vision of capitalism that Adam Smith wanted” – I would agree with you but on different grounds, I think we have too much regulation and we are not willing to let the market run it’s course. Enron failed, these banks making unwise loans failed, the market punished them and rewards those who were wise.
There will always be companies who try to circumvent the system, we have a strong justice system and good financial laws to catch them but, you cannot prevent everything. Sometimes people make bad decisions and businesses try to cheat the system. Eventually, the market adjusts.
“Nice try. He didn’t withdraw with a speech so he couldn’t have “looked happier”, he withdrew with a short release.”
I know. But you honestly think he wasn’t interviewed or interrogated by reporters afterward? If so, you weren’t paying attention. He did indeed look happy–for the first time since Fred “This Is My Serious Face, Now Watch Me Method Act” Thompson joined the race, he wasn’t trying to act.
“He withdrew like he ran, focused, direct and to the point.”
Focused? Were we watching the same guy? On the trail and at debates, he was all over the place with his comments, his behavior, and his level of apathy. Other than his Emmy-deserving performance at the final debate, he was about as focused as scattershot.
“Not full of showmanship and rhetoric like Obama.”
Whoa, I thought you were a Reagan fan? Why do you think anybody voted for Reagan in the first place? The much vaunted “Reagan Democrats” weren’t attracted to his policies…it was the rhetoric, showmanship, and optimism they liked. That’s why everyone had high hopes for Thompson–they figured another actor could pull off the same trick. Unfortunately for them, Thompson wasn’t as good an actor as Reagan, even if he had really tried.
“He actually had a record, you knew what he would do because he had done it in the past: lower taxes, support our defense and limit government.”
Obama has a record. If he didn’t, it would be awfully hard to rank his record “the most liberal in the Senate”. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, Brandon…otherwise George W. Bush would be a figment of America’s collective imagination right now. Pity that isn’t the case, really…
“With a ranking from a non-partisan organization that shows Obama has the most liberal record out there, we now understand why his charisma and rhetoric are so important: his record shows he is little more than your average hardcore Democrat.”
And beneath the charisma and rhetoric, Reagan was your average hardcore Republican. And? Face it, George W. Bush pulled a Brutus on the Republican Party Caesar. It doesn’t really matter who you nominate now, he isn’t going to win. The country wants your party out, and you have no one to blame but yourselves.
By the by, Brandon, meet my boyfriend Richard. You two should have fun together…he’s a moderate liberal, but a fiscal conservative (and an econ major). Play nice.
Your last comment has what I was shooting for: contradictions. It is one thing to say that the best policy is to get out of people’s way so they can go about their day to day business unhindered, and quite another to say they we have the right laws and judicial practices that takes care of those that are unethical. Brandon, it comes down to this: There must be laws that the government enforces to prevent unethical behavior. For this to happen, we need the government to have the power to create these laws and enforce them. In order for this to happen, we need taxes to finance those that work for the government to protect us from illicit behavior. There are some things we need taxes for and this is unavoidable. Essentially, what I am advocating is for the market to adjust for regular business transactions. Illegal ones should be prosecuted, which contradicts your assertion that the free market will decide. (While you say we have laws to that will put the bad guys away). If no laws exist, then you have nothing to prosecute a corporation for. Regardless, regulation is put in place to avoid the contradiction.
Back to your original assertion on Obama. So what if he won’t cut taxes or decrease spending? Reagan, cut taxes and created a gigantic deficit from his increased spending on national defense. If our government is going to increase spending, which is bound to happen in order to pay for essential services and the interest on our debt, then we must pay more in taxes or worthless programs must go away.
I happen to agree with you that the free market should decide what happens to the banks now. The regulation should have been enforced earlier, but now millions of Americans will have to suffer in order for the balance to restore.
If you believe our economy is doing fine, you need a reality check. It has been on the downturn for nearly a year. Outrageous speculation by the stock market does not mean that our economy is doing well. All the warning signs existed years ago of what would happen. Hopefully, the free market will balance things, but at what cost?
Brandon – Thanksgiving must be a lot of fun for you and yours…
Nah, John…it’s Christmas that’s a blast!
[...] key quote from the article is exactly what I pointed out in my last post about him being the most liberal member of the senate: “If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee and fails to take steps such as this, [...]
“I know. But you honestly think he wasn’t interviewed or interrogated by reporters afterward? If so, you weren’t paying attention.”
No, again you are wrong. Do you even pay attention to the race besides your man? He didnt give any interviews when he withdrew, he was with his ailing mother in Tennesee and exited quietly. He tried to campaign in a common sense way rather than campaigning on empty charisma like Obama.
Obama is campaigning on an almost complete lack of a record. He is all talk an no action. Now that we are starting to see what he really is we are understanding he is just another hardcore liberal (the most liberal in the Senate) not the uniter he tries to sell himself as.
“No, again you are wrong. Do you even pay attention to the race besides your man? He didnt give any interviews when he withdrew, he was with his ailing mother in Tennesee and exited quietly. He tried to campaign in a common sense way rather than campaigning on empty charisma like Obama.”
Yep, I’ve been following you guys’ race, too. It’s a great source of amusement to me, mostly of the schadenfreude kind. I read several interviews with his staffers saying that he looked much happier after announcing his decision to leave the race, and saw photos of him afterwards, too. For the first time, his smile was a natural one…we actors can tell the difference. I thought I saw one interview with him after the fact, but I’ll grant that I could be misremembering. But face it, Brandon, for an actor he was boring as hell. He phoned in his performance, then opted out in pursuit of a role he actually liked.
By all means keep venting your impotent rage about Obama at every opportunity, though…it’s cute, and quite amusing.
“Obama is campaigning on an almost complete lack of a record. He is all talk an no action. Now that we are starting to see what he really is we are understanding he is just another hardcore liberal (the most liberal in the Senate) not the uniter he tries to sell himself as.”
What’s hilarious is that you can’t see the inherent contradiction in that statement. If he has no record, then he couldn’t be accurately adjudged the most liberal senator (since that’s determined by comparing voting and sponsorship records). Either he has a record, or your “most liberal senator” claim has no grounds. So which is it?
Anyway, when it comes to unity, your problem is that you misunderstand what that means. He has no intention of “uniting” with diehard wingnut neocons (although he’s proven himself willing and able to co-sponsor bills with moderate Republicans, both on the national and state level). What he intends to do is unite the citizens of this country behind the presidency and behind his policies, rather than letting us suffer through eight more years of a president with 27% approval ratings. And on that score, he has already proven himself successful simply by the fact that he has gotten ever-growing numbers of independents and even “Republicans for life” to back him to the hilt. He is uniting the country, just not behind your preferred banner…and that’s just too bad for you.
Kat-
Give me links to all this pictures and interviews you talked about.
Examples of these “bills with moderate Republicans” you are talking about? Who are these Republicans for life?
Your rhetoric is almost as bad as his, all talk and no evidence.
“Give me links to all this pictures and interviews you talked about.”
I’ll look for them, but no guarantees I can find them again at this point. Anyway, I know that it must be embarrassing to predict a groundswell for a candidate right before they utterly flop, but it’s high time you got over your little hissy fit and faced facts. America liked Ron freaking Paul better than your candidate. Deal with it like a man.
“Examples of these “bills with moderate Republicans” you are talking about?”
Hmm, let’s see:
Keep Americans Warm Act of 2007 (with Coleman and Snowe)
Armed Forces Suicide Prevention Act (with Hagel)
Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction Provision (with Hagel)
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (with Coburn)
National STEM Scholarship Database Act (with Collins and Coleman)
Global Poverty Act (with Hagel)
Fair Pay Restoration Act (with Specter and Snowe)
Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (with Bond and Lieberman–the hell he’s an independent)
Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Initiative (with Lugar)
VA Scholarship Program Initiative (with Hagel)
Veterans Mental Health Outreach and Access Act (with Domenici)
Military and Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment Act (with Warner and Graham)
Mercury Market Minimization Act (with Murkowski)
Fuel Economy Reform Act (with Lugar, Smith, Specter, and Coleman)
Hatch-Obama Tithing Bill (with Hatch)
Coburn-Obama No-Bid Contracting Bill (with Coburn)
Supplemental Appropriations Bill Amendment (with Voinovich)
American Fuels Act to Reduce U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil (with Lugar)
The Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act (with Brownback and DeWine)
I won’t start listing off his state-level accomplishments, but I encourage you to look up the campaign finance reform, anti-racial profiling, and interrogation monitoring laws he passed and how he accomplished them.
“Who are these Republicans for life?”
Don’t get out much, do you? Read the comments on the blogs of major newspapers, you’ll spot the Republicans for Obama out in full force. By the way, you look remarkably silly trying to claim that a chunk of Republicans aren’t supporting Obama in the comments section of a blog post in which you bewail the fact that a chunk of Republicans are supporting Obama. Which is it, kiddo?
“Your rhetoric is almost as bad as his, all talk and no evidence.”
Says the Republican. Oh, that is funny…