President Obama's signal accomplishments could easily have been signed into law by a moderate Republican.
The Presidents three centerpiece accomplishments:
1. Ending the war in Iraq
2. Ending the Armed Forces' policy of "don't ask, don't tell"
3. Passing healthcare reform.
President Obama's signal accomplishments could easily have been signed into law by a moderate Republican. The war in Iraq was deeply unpopular, acceptance of gays is increasingly mainstream, and healthcare reform had been on everyone's agenda for years.
Anyone with the slightest grasp of American history could find equally "liberal" accomplishments in the administrations of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and even George Bush 1. Indeed, it could easily be argued that Obama ended the war far later than a moderate Republican might have, and that he caved into the sickcare Status Quo to such a degree that his "reform" essentially accomplishes nothing.
Obama continues the war in Afghanistan, sacrificing American lives and treasure for political posturing, and he agreed ("with reservations") to a congressional bill that gives the President unprecedented rights to impose "prolonged detention" on suspected terrorists and handing them to the U.S. Armed Forces, even as the military insists it has no interest or need in assuming such detention responsibilities.
Would a moderate Republican have agreed to gut the Bill of Rights with such tepid "reservations"?
From a more objective view stripped of phony ideological parsing, what exactly is the difference between Obama's policies and those of moderate Republicans? We can get a better grasp of Obama's centrist nature by asking a few key questions:
How many bloated weapons systems has he cancelled? (Zero)
How many Army overseas bases has he closed? (none)
Who runs his financial policies? Wall Street cronies.
The far right, or left , would destroy America's greatest qualities .
The Presidents three centerpiece accomplishments:
1. Ending the war in Iraq
2. Ending the Armed Forces' policy of "don't ask, don't tell"
3. Passing healthcare reform.
President Obama's signal accomplishments could easily have been signed into law by a moderate Republican. The war in Iraq was deeply unpopular, acceptance of gays is increasingly mainstream, and healthcare reform had been on everyone's agenda for years.
Anyone with the slightest grasp of American history could find equally "liberal" accomplishments in the administrations of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and even George Bush 1. Indeed, it could easily be argued that Obama ended the war far later than a moderate Republican might have, and that he caved into the sickcare Status Quo to such a degree that his "reform" essentially accomplishes nothing.
Obama continues the war in Afghanistan, sacrificing American lives and treasure for political posturing, and he agreed ("with reservations") to a congressional bill that gives the President unprecedented rights to impose "prolonged detention" on suspected terrorists and handing them to the U.S. Armed Forces, even as the military insists it has no interest or need in assuming such detention responsibilities.
Would a moderate Republican have agreed to gut the Bill of Rights with such tepid "reservations"?
From a more objective view stripped of phony ideological parsing, what exactly is the difference between Obama's policies and those of moderate Republicans? We can get a better grasp of Obama's centrist nature by asking a few key questions:
How many bloated weapons systems has he cancelled? (Zero)
How many Army overseas bases has he closed? (none)
Who runs his financial policies? Wall Street cronies.
The most conservative Presidents were Warren G. Harding. He cut taxes on the rich from nearly 80% to 25%, making it the biggest tax cut in US history. That lead directly to the Great Depression.
Reagan was another very conservative President. He cut taxes on the rich from 70% to 28% and nearly quadrupled the national debt.
Dubya was another very conservative President. He cut taxes on the rich from 39.6% to 35%, cut capital gains significantly, got the country into 2 wars and doubled the national debt.
On the other hand, let's look at the most liberal Presidents. Abraham Lincoln was a very liberal President. In a very real way, he was more liberal (for his time) than the Democratic Party is today. He saved the nation.
The most liberal President in US history was FDR. He saved the country from the Great Depression, won World War 2, and turned an agricultural nation into the strongest economic superpower the world had ever known.
Another very liberal president was Harry Truman. He helped end War World 2, and helped the nation recover from war. He was smart enough to rebuild Europe, and as a result, Europe is an economic powerhouse with broad range freedom and equality (despite their current financial troubles).
When you really look at it, progressives have always been the ones to make the world a better place. That move whole societies forward. They create progress. Conservatives destroy societies and weaken them from within.
This isn't a "you can see it this way or that way" kind of argument. This is an argument based on facts. The worst societies on earth are the most conservative. The best societies on earth are the most liberal.
Don't believe me? Well, ask yourself, where would you rather live? Saudi Arabia or Sweden?
There is no such thing as a Liberal politician. Liberals will never be elected to office. All liberal ideas clash with the US agenda.
The Presidencey is a one party system.
ideologues. Yet, to get elected, voters on each end of the spectrum expect them to be the latter. 