Conservative corner

[ReneNYG1]

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/20/mark_levin_on_resentful_obama_im_ashamed_of_this_president_i_think_hes_a_disgrace.html
This President could of took the high ground instead he takes the Sharpton approach which is not worthy of the office he holds.We can disagree but please state the facts of the matter America has saved the World by spilling his blood to save other countries asses only to have this President opligize to the world,his wife said that when her husband got elected it was the first time she was proud to be an American,WOW,really and when soldiers give up their lives for her freedom she wasn't proud some first lady they belong together.

[babylon5]

Rene,

If you look at Obama's actual record he is no Liberal. He is, in point of fact, closer to an Ike-style moderate Republican.

He has created less public service jobs than Obama. His taxes are lower than Reagan's. He signed a free trade pact with South Korea, Panama and Colombia. When the unions fought their biggest battle in years in Wisconsin, Obama did...NOTHING! He has not shut down Gitmo. He is more a friend to Wall Street than W was. His military budget is more than W's. He took the Patriot Act and one upped it with that God-awful DAA which just about guts habear corpus. His drone policy will be causing blowback for this country for years to come. he backed a coup in Honduras. He has repeatedly said that he is willing to cut Medicare and Social Security. And Obamacare is a Republican idea, first tried by Romney and was the birthed by the Heritage Foundation-a Conservative Think Tank.

Of course the Tea Party claims that he is a socialist from Kenya. But that merely means that the Tea Party has a poorer sense of geography than of political systems.

[rxmeister]

Nice post, Babylon. I'm pretty sure Obama came into office as a liberal, and is liberal in his thinking, but the government is just not conducive to those kinds of ideas. First you have to deal with half of it being Republican, who are dinosaurs with their thinking, which is ironic because they deny their existence! Then you have to deal with conservative democrats, and there are more than you think in this country. You can propose a liberal idea, but by the time it gets through congress it doesn't even resemble the original plan that the President had in mind. The right wing has hated him from the jump, and the liberals think he has gone to the middle. He really can't win. I wouldn't want that job!

[babylon5]

rx,

Thank you, but sadly (well if you are Liberal or Progressive) after the Reagan Revolution, both parties went more to the Right.

I would also add that the GOP, in an effort to win the hearts and minds (such as it is) of the Southern vote, which they felt might lean more towards Carter, he was one of their own after all, made a deal with the Devil and brought the Evangelical Christians under the GOP tent...despite the mighty protestations of the last true Conservative American politian (IMHO), Barry Goldwater (although I did not agree with his politics, he is one of my favorite US politicians, because he stood up for what he what he believed in...and it cost him his career. Courage always wins points with me.) fought tooth and nail to keep Born-againers out of the GOP.

And he was right. All you have to do is to look at the last Republican nomination process to see who the GOP has to put up to appease its radical base-Michele "Pray the Gay Away" Bachmann, Rick " homosexuality leads straight to bestiality" Santorum, Newt "Mr. Family values who served one of his ex-wives with divorce papers while she was in the hospital receiving cancer treatments" Gingrich and Donald "Birther" Trump.

Each one had the lead in the GOP nomination race until "Deep Pockets and career Flip-flopper" Mitt bought his way to the nomination.

Gone are the days of the moderate Republican. If you believe in science, evolution, a woman's right to choose (which Goldwater believed in), the environment (Nixon gave us the EPA), marriage equality you can't belong to the GOP.

Ike would be too Liberal, Nixon would be too Liberal. Hell Reagan would be too Liberal for the new GOP.

And sadly the Democrats themselves decided to move to the Right and would deny ever being called Liberals now.

But worse still is that both parties are so awash in corporate cash that this nation resembles the so-called "banana repbulics" of Latin America-a small oligarchy that sets the public agenda, curtails personal freedoms, militarizes the police, while imposes draconian austerity programs when their (the rich) economic policies fail.

P.S. Full disclosure. I am neither a Liberal or Conservative, as I am strongly anti-capitalist. BUT I am not a communist, socialist, Marxist, or Maoist either. I do not worship at the alter of any one political party.

[rxmeister]

I used to hold my nose and vote Republican because they were the party of lower taxes, and that was the only issue that directly affected me. I then realized that one issue couldn't hold me when I disagreed with them on every other single issue, and I couldn't vote selfishly any longer. Now I vote Democratic, and although they talk a good game, they do nothing as well. They're at least the lesser of two evils.

[babylon5]

rx,

The sad thing is that the lesser of an evil is still evil.

But what does that say about the state of our political system. We have only two choices: the party of bad ideas and the party of no ideas.

I am of the mind that there is no hope that the system can be changed from within. The change has to come from us. We need to remind both parties that they are supposed to work for the good of ALL people and not just the ones who give them the highest contributions.

However in a class based system which operates under an anti-democratic economic system (Capitalism is a hierarchy with the power and the wealth concentrated at the top and I would argue is anti-democratic by nature.), the question remains can there even exist a true democracy under such a system?

And given that most of advanced capitalist nations have turned away from Keynesian economic model (for its faults there was greater income equality under it)and have turned to a more radical form of capitalism based on the fringe theories of Milton Friedman, we see far greater inequality across the board and less financial security.

All one has to do is to look to Europe to see what rotten fruit Friedman's model of capitalism has spawned. Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ireland and England have all great economic crises and they all reacted to their crises with austerity programs and that turned a tragedy and made it worse.

But there are also little rays of hope from across the pond too. Iceland was hit hard by the Great Recession but instead of bailing the banks out, they actually held those guilty of being part of that giant Ponzi scheme accountable, turned their noses up at Milton Friedman's economic model and I am happy to report that Iceland is now in much better economic shape than those countries who chose to enforce austerity measures on their masses in order to pay for the crimes of a small, economic elite.

[ReneNYG1]

I agree with alot he has done and I'm quite supprised because you guys are right I expected him to be more liberal,he has done alot of good things IMO.I just don't like a few things he has done alot.I guess that is true about all the Presidents.Wiki leaks guy was the one that got reform from the banks there Babs by exposing alot of fraud.I just want both parties to stop the hating and get things done,I'm affraid the lobbist have gotten to both sides so real reform is impossible.I truly like the liberterian party Gary Johnson take on things.All these guys in office from both parties taken too much money from companies making them loyal to them instead of doing the right thing for the country and the world.

[babylon5]

Rene,

I don't think that Edward Snowden had any impact on the banks. There has yet to be one banker to be brought up on any charges since Obama has taken office.

You are right about how lobbyists have transformed our government from a government for the people to a government that pushes the corporate agenda at the people's expense.

Lastly, I hear what you are about the Libertarian Party, and I agree with some of their platforms, especially their stance on closing the over 1000 military bases around the world. Why are we still in Japan? Germany? And why is Obama building military bases in Africa and in many of the old USSR satellite states? I am sure that it is merely a coincidence that all of the countries have oil. Pure happenstance.

But back to the Libertarians. Their position that there should be zero government oversight and regulation would serve the poor folks in Weest Virgina no good. The coal mining interests and the need to maximize profits meant that they skirted important environmental safety consideration and now 300 thousand people are without water.

Laissez faire capitalism only works to the benefit of the ruling capitalist class. And as Adam Smith noted, the interests of the capitalist class are not in the best interests of the overall society.

[babylon5]

truth-out.org/opinion/item/21138-the-political-economy-of-predatory-capitalism