A Washington Post story today (1/24/13) leads with this:
Obama at the Inauguration (Photo: NASA/Bill Ingalls)
The success of President Obama’s starkly liberal second-term agenda will rest largely on the shoulders of Senate majority leader Harry M. Reid, who has been a rock-solid political ally and a valued legislative tactician for Obama during his first term.
That characterization of Obama’s agenda–shared by many in corporate media (FAIR Media Advisory, 1/23/13)–seems better suited for an op-ed than a news article, especially since reporter Paul Kane has little to back up his argument. The piece is mostly about Obama’s gun proposals, which Kane reports will constitute three things: background checks for buyers, limits on the size of gun clips and an assault weapons ban.
Those ideas are actually solidly popular with the majority of the public. According to the most recent Washington Post poll–which Kane alludes to in passing–86 percent of Americans support background checks, 55 percent support limits on high-capacity ammunition clips and 58 percent support an assault weapons ban (a law that was in effect from 1994-2004, which was perhaps a time for “starkly liberal” gun restrictions).
Interestingly, a more convincing case about Obama’s second term agenda–at least the one advertised in his inaugural address–came from the op-ed page of the Post (1/24/13), the place where such opinions are supposed to appear. Democratic public relations strategist Kenneth Baer writes:
If you missed Barack Obama’s inaugural address on Monday, you might have thought that it was George McGovern who took the oath of office.
He goes on:
The speech sounded so robustly liberal not because the president or his party has changed but because the Republican Party has, moving far outside the norms of American political thought.
Defending the idea of a social safety net to guard against the vagaries of life is hardly radical.
To be clear, Baer’s perspective is that the Clinton/Third Way shift to the right by the Democratic party was a good thing–and he sees Obama as being basically in line with this “New Democrat” approach. One can certainly disagree with that, but it’s a far more convincing assessment of Obama’s politics than the one offered by the supposedly straight news account in the same paper.
Considering what he’s poised to do to shred that safety net
And what he hasn’t done to protect, let alone expand it
Defending it would indeed be a “radical” act on Dear Misleader’s part, wouldn’t it?
The act would be so by comparison, the idea however is not and never has been. However as the old saying goes, when your up to your ass in alligators, it is often forgotten that the original intent you came out for was to drain the swamp.
Far too many tea bagging, mono-winged, parrot-gators for present.
None of the supposedly progressive proposals put forth by the president will be worth a damn so long as he can get away with the assertion that he has the absolute right to have anyone, citizen or not, removed, either by apprehension or murder, deemed to be a national security risk. That’s what due process is supposed to address. Without due process, there can be no progressive movement!
Starkly Naked Full Frontal Fascist of the Fatherland (going Fuehrerward, off course)
So, basically, starkly liberal and center-right now have the same meaning?
Oh yes, Harry Reid is a wonderful ally, allowing the moment for filibuster reform to come and go with absolutely no change. With friends like this, who needs enemies.
“So, basically, starkly liberal and center-right now have the same meaning?”
Actually I think “starkly liberal” and “in touch with some actual reality” now have the same meaning.
People see Obama as a mystery,wrapped inside a riddle.Yet those who have followed him since his first appearance on the national scene(me)…have never seen a deviation from his core beliefs.The only thing that has changed is his ability to effect change.As president he moves with the natural aplomb of a hard core ideolog toward becoming a transitional leader like Reagan.He does not see Nixon,or even Clinton in that light.But he realizes that Reagan moved to instill individualism(with all its rewards and failures) into the average American.Obama moves to remove it, and replace it with collectivism.He truly believes that an empowered federal government can cure any ill,and make anything right.Anything that hampers that(the constitution)….is seen as a nuisance.Another nuisance is his crumbling tax base to support this massive nanny state.His movements up to date have been the movements of an amateur.He moves like an all knowing blind man to the end of the room,without a clue as to what it is he has knocked aside on his way.California and New York are loosing their wealthiest people en mass as they flee to better tax havens.Anyone who is not blind, would foresee this development.His second term will be no deviation from his first in the sense of those core beliefs.His learning core is a mirage.
What did that great man, George McGovern, ever do to the former senior advisor to the 2004 Joe Lieberman for President campaign, Kenneth Baer, that he should be slandered so?
McGovern was the last authentic liberal nominated by the Democratic Party. It’s been moving in a consistently hard right direction ever since.
I worked on the 1972 campaign, and for those of you too young to have been there, it’s probably difficult to imagine how an honestly left-liberal progressive candidate sounds or feels. A generation or two of voters have grown up on the lies, corruption and continued degradation of the last vestiges of the New Deal by the solipsism of the Clinton and Obama neo-liberal administrations. It wasn’t always so, and doesn’t have to be.
“Starkly liberal or centrist” is a false choice.
The current pResident, just like every pResident since Johnson, is fascist, and bows deeply to his Global Fascist Elite masters, who are the same masters of the Democratic-Republican Party, Inc.
@michael e:
Define “nanny” state. Give me three examples of modern nation states which meet that definition. Give me three modern examples of non nanny nation states that work for anyone other than a tiny minority. Was this country a nanny state or a non nanny state during the golden age of Jim Crow? Explain how Ronald Reagan’s hostility to voting rights and non discrimination laws made him a “champion of the individual.”
Please head I dont think it is hard to see what a nanny state is.I would almost say that if you need definitions and comparison shopping among nations that you are without the bell weather that so easily defines this state of being.So to speak- you have been educated away from American rugged individualism and acceptance of the responsibility for your life, to the point that you no longer are capable of seeing the forest for the trees.Look to the absolute failures of socialism and communism(collectivism) where ever it has been tried.Europe has been wrecked due to it.We are being wrecked because of it.It is the simple idea that government is a better steward of your life than you are as an individual.That they are a better steward of your wealth than you are yourself.And of course that is abject nonsense.And in direct contradiction to the constitution that assigns rights to the individual over the collective every time.In effect non nanny states work for the smallest minority of all…..the individual.And the less work the state does…the better!Obama is the king of collectivism.The king of a massive Fed.The king of confiscatory policies unmatched, for the soul purpose of growing the governments power in ALL aspects of your life.He is the king of the political elite(now).Want to know what the biggest boom town is in the Us..?Washington DC. Uber rich.Why wouldn’t they be?Our Senators and congressmen have unmatched golden parachutes.AND they are ALLOWED to conduct insider trading.Their own families are hired as their own lobbyists.They come in relatively poor and leave multi millionaires.
The idea on the liberal side is that if the rich paid a little more…that all would be well.It is a bold lie.Government is not able to take care of us.We must do that job.Reagan for whatever ills you can point to- I think intrinsically knew this .Obama is a believer.A believer that government can fix and cure all problems if so empowered.Reagan said the most dangerous words ever uttered are…..WE ARE HERE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND WE ARE GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEM.He knew that government IS the problem.
Thanks for that, Steve.
It is a concern to me that President Obama was re-elected with less votes than his first win (I’ve heard it was 5 million less). This shows the continued disaffection of the American electorate. And specifically in response to the Roe v. Wade issue… It was decided by 9 men, I may be wrong but the statistics sited seem way off, but even if they are accurate, there are very many pro-life democrats that are tired of being told their position on this issue somehow makes them anathema to the party… Additionally, Preident Carter’s concerns at the democratic convention should have been mentioned…. And to be clear here, I am trying to discuss the issue of the taking of life, (not contraception). Even if one believes abortion “may be a right” to me at least, it is more troubling that pro-life folk are demonized by certain Democratic politicians as “not caring about children” after they are born”…. That, to me, seems to be the big lie,… As it seems just basically rings untrue to me… I’m not sure why it doesn’t ring untrue to others…. Look, Democratic and progressive people can be I guess the phrase is “pro-life”
I dare someone to defend the term “Centrist.” What the heck is that? Milder form of Rightwinger? Someone who believes it is OK to have some degree of inequality? We should applaud such Renaissance men and women for not being COMPLETELY opposed to equality?
Inequality is the enemy. Inequality serves the interests of the Right Wing. That’s all there is to it. The rest of humanity suffers.
There is no such thing as a “Centrist.” I urge people on the Left to stop using it; maybe that will set the tone for pundits and so-called journalists to stop using it as well.
President Obama like X-Presidents is a globalist not a Democratic liberal or centralist. Why debate this? He is Fascist.
The difference is this group of new Fascists who rule today don’t want anyone to have anything in including good health care (for profit of the insurance corporations). If Obama had wanted that he had the chance and let it go.
The leaders to day want us all slaves and themselves kings. The few rule the many. It is Dark Ages with religion involved. They aren’t religious they just use it.
Leaders all over the world are doing the same following us or because of US.
Follow the money to Wall Street and London thugs.
No difference there are two ways of looking at the term centrist.One is that it is simply a person in government accepting the middle road in everything politic.Accept the lay of the land, and follow the majority opinion in every instance.The other(the way i see it) is a politician that only panders to his stated core values.Willing to barter them away for political expediency and gain.The republicans are showing this everyday now.Caving on their core beliefs because of lost elections.Soon they will loose their own beliefs.The left is less so(at this moment)They now dance to their more hard core special interest groups fiddles.And If they show any backbone ,and retreat from long held liberal beliefs they are called….centrist!I have contempt for those willing to compromise their own values.Thats why I would loose every time as a politician.
Obama, a liberal? Of all the limitless illusions the general public labors under, this is one of the most egregious and simpleminded. Anyone that can look at the Obama record, not his speeches, mind you, and conclude that Obama’s anything but a conservative is politically blind. The degree of self-delusion of which the public is capable is staggering.
By the way, among the few posts on this list, two include the word “lose,” but, unknowingly, mispelled by the writers as “loose.” Why the hopeless and widespread persistence of this error?
michael e says “Look to the absolute failures of socialism and communism(collectivism) where ever it has been tried.Europe has been wrecked due to it.”
Dude, you really need to learn about the world outside of the USA more. It’s not what you seem to think it is.
Firstly, socialism and communism are not the same thing.
For just a few successful examples of socialism see Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and to some degree France. Seriously. Look at those countries and see their successes.
I see many comments like this online. I wonder if people in the USA actually bother to learn much at all about the world outside of the USA.
From where I’m sitting at the bottom of the Southern Hemisphere your Obama looks like a centre slightly right politician. It’s not the left as we know it down here.