Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

In December, President Obama signed legislation to extend hundreds of billions of dollars in Bush tax cuts, benefiting the wealthiest Americans. Last week, Obama agreed to billions of dollars in cuts that will impose the greatest burden on the poorest Americans. And now, virtually everyone in Washington believes, the President is about to embark on a path that will ultimately lead to some type of reductions in Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicaid benefits under the banner of "reform." Tax cuts for the rich -- budget cuts for the poor -- "reform" of the Democratic Party's signature safety net programs -- a continuation of Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies and a new Middle East war launched without Congressional approval. That's quite a legacy combination for a Democratic President.

Whether in economic policy, national security, civil liberties, or the permanent consortium of corporate power that runs Washington, Obama, above all else, is content to be (one could even say eager to be) guardian of the status quo. And the forces of the status quo want tax cuts for the rich, serious cuts in government spending that don't benefit them (social programs and progressive regulatory schemes), and entitlement "reform" -- so that's what Obama will do. He won't advocate, and will actually oppose, steps as extreme as the ones Paul Ryan is proposing: that's how he will retain his "centrist" political identity and keep the fear levels high among his voting base. He'll pay lip service to some Democratic economic dogma and defend some financially inconsequential culture war positions: that's how he will signal to the base that he's still on their side. But the direction will be the same as the GOP desires and, most importantly, how the most powerful economic factions demand: not because he can't figure out how to change that dynamic, but because that's what benefits him and thus what he wants.

kalm wrote:Or at least center right. But certainly not the sociocommiepinkoislamoprogressive that some crack him up to be.

Here's a good analysis from Glenn Greenwald touching on why Obama doesn't have to appease progressives and a strong indication of why he will be a two term president:

In December, President Obama signed legislation to extend hundreds of billions of dollars in Bush tax cuts, benefiting the wealthiest Americans. Last week, Obama agreed to billions of dollars in cuts that will impose the greatest burden on the poorest Americans. And now, virtually everyone in Washington believes, the President is about to embark on a path that will ultimately lead to some type of reductions in Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicaid benefits under the banner of "reform." Tax cuts for the rich -- budget cuts for the poor -- "reform" of the Democratic Party's signature safety net programs -- a continuation of Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies and a new Middle East war launched without Congressional approval. That's quite a legacy combination for a Democratic President.

Whether in economic policy, national security, civil liberties, or the permanent consortium of corporate power that runs Washington, Obama, above all else, is content to be (one could even say eager to be) guardian of the status quo. And the forces of the status quo want tax cuts for the rich, serious cuts in government spending that don't benefit them (social programs and progressive regulatory schemes), and entitlement "reform" -- so that's what Obama will do. He won't advocate, and will actually oppose, steps as extreme as the ones Paul Ryan is proposing: that's how he will retain his "centrist" political identity and keep the fear levels high among his voting base. He'll pay lip service to some Democratic economic dogma and defend some financially inconsequential culture war positions: that's how he will signal to the base that he's still on their side. But the direction will be the same as the GOP desires and, most importantly, how the most powerful economic factions demand: not because he can't figure out how to change that dynamic, but because that's what benefits him and thus what he wants.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:Or at least center right. But certainly not the sociocommiepinkoislamoprogressive that some crack him up to be.

Here's a good analysis from Glenn Greenwald touching on why Obama doesn't have to appease progressives and a strong indication of why he will be a two term president:



http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Glenn Greenwald-Beck.

Obama the politician is more accurate. Obama is on record countless times. He is a staunch hard left "progressive". His problem is that the country doesn't share those values, period....it's as simple as that. The country doesn't want Gitmo closed, it doesn't want the US to try KSM and his ilk in Federal Courts in New York, it doesn't want socialized medicine (Obamacare was just the first step), it believes the Constitution should be a document of negative liberties, etc. etc. etc...

Obama is a "Conk" because he has to play that role in order to get reelected. He is a great campaigner and reads one hell of a mean speech off a teleprompter, but the shine has dulled off that turd.

Ivytalk wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Glenn Greenwald-Beck.

Obama the politician is more accurate. Obama is on record countless times. He is a staunch hard left "progressive". His problem is that the country doesn't share those values, period....it's as simple as that. The country doesn't want Gitmo closed, it doesn't want the US to try KSM and his ilk in Federal Courts in New York, it doesn't want socialized medicine (Obamacare was just the first step), it believes the Constitution should be a document of negative liberties, etc. etc. etc...

Obama is a "Conk" because he has to play that role in order to get reelected. He is a great campaigner and reads one hell of a mean speech off a teleprompter, but the shine has dulled off that turd.

Obama is the consummate Chicago pol who will promise the greater number anything they ask until election day 2012. It's after that date that his true sociocommiepinkoislamoprogressivefascist (raised you one epithet, there, kalm!) colors will shine forth.

CitadelGrad wrote:Just because he's been in bed with Goldman Sachs for many years doesn't mean he's pro big business. It just means that he knows how to serve the people who were able to put him in power and keep him there.

kalm wrote:Or at least center right. But certainly not the sociocommiepinkoislamoprogressive that some crack him up to be.

Here's a good analysis from Glenn Greenwald touching on why Obama doesn't have to appease progressives and a strong indication of why he will be a two term president:

In December, President Obama signed legislation to extend hundreds of billions of dollars in Bush tax cuts, benefiting the wealthiest Americans. Last week, Obama agreed to billions of dollars in cuts that will impose the greatest burden on the poorest Americans. And now, virtually everyone in Washington believes, the President is about to embark on a path that will ultimately lead to some type of reductions in Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicaid benefits under the banner of "reform." Tax cuts for the rich -- budget cuts for the poor -- "reform" of the Democratic Party's signature safety net programs -- a continuation of Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies and a new Middle East war launched without Congressional approval. That's quite a legacy combination for a Democratic President.

Whether in economic policy, national security, civil liberties, or the permanent consortium of corporate power that runs Washington, Obama, above all else, is content to be (one could even say eager to be) guardian of the status quo. And the forces of the status quo want tax cuts for the rich, serious cuts in government spending that don't benefit them (social programs and progressive regulatory schemes), and entitlement "reform" -- so that's what Obama will do. He won't advocate, and will actually oppose, steps as extreme as the ones Paul Ryan is proposing: that's how he will retain his "centrist" political identity and keep the fear levels high among his voting base. He'll pay lip service to some Democratic economic dogma and defend some financially inconsequential culture war positions: that's how he will signal to the base that he's still on their side. But the direction will be the same as the GOP desires and, most importantly, how the most powerful economic factions demand: not because he can't figure out how to change that dynamic, but because that's what benefits him and thus what he wants.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:Or at least center right. But certainly not the sociocommiepinkoislamoprogressive that some crack him up to be.

Here's a good analysis from Glenn Greenwald touching on why Obama doesn't have to appease progressives and a strong indication of why he will be a two term president:



http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Glenn Greenwald-Beck.

Obama the politician is more accurate. Obama is on record countless times. He is a staunch hard left "progressive". His problem is that the country doesn't share those values, period....it's as simple as that. The country doesn't want Gitmo closed, it doesn't want the US to try KSM and his ilk in Federal Courts in New York, it doesn't want socialized medicine (Obamacare was just the first step), it believes the Constitution should be a document of negative liberties, etc. etc. etc...

Obama is a "Conk" because he has to play that role in order to get reelected. He is a great campaigner and reads one hell of a mean speech off a teleprompter, but the shine has dulled off that turd.

Wedgebuster wrote:^^^^

Who will be easily re-elected.

native wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:^^^^

Who will be easily re-elected.

Sure. He could get re-elected. But I don't think it will be easy, Wedges.

Wedgebuster wrote:^^^^

Who will be easily re-elected.

bulldog10jw wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:^^^^

Who will be easily re-elected.

Obviously, much depends on who the Republicans nominate. That being said, no matter who his opponent is, I would be shocked if OB carries as many states as he did in '08.

Wedgebuster wrote:

native wrote:
Sure. He could get re-elected. But I don't think it will be easy, Wedges.

He will get re-elected, and it will be easy.

Wedgebuster wrote:

bulldog10jw wrote:
Obviously, much depends on who the Republicans nominate. That being said, no matter who his opponent is, I would be shocked if OB carries as many states as he did in '08.

Do you see anybody on the list so far that will do better than McCain? That's my point, time is getting away from us, and so far the list is cartoon material.

Look back to the Clinton/Dole election, that one was not as close as his first election vs GHWB as I remember.

bulldog10jw wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
Do you see anybody on the list so far that will do better than McCain? That's my point, time is getting away from us, and so far the list is cartoon material.

Look back to the Clinton/Dole election, that one was not as close as his first election vs GHWB as I remember.

Apples/Oranges

Clinton was a much stronger candidate than Obama will ever be.

Pwns wrote:Is he a conk in the George W. Bush sense? With the exception of the issue of abortion and taxes, yes. Is he true center-right? Nope.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Pwns wrote:Is he a conk in the George W. Bush sense? With the exception of the issue of abortion and taxes, yes. Is he true center-right? Nope.

W. wasn't exactly a conservative. Interventionist foreign and military policy is NOT conservative.