Metal Sludge Gossip Board

http://search.slashdot.org/story/13/08/ ... m-the-feds

If you folks on the right had asked one of us *liberals* back in '08, we'd have told you Obama wasn't one of us. He's essentially what would have been a centrist Republican thirty years ago. These were people, like Bob Dole, that we liberals didn't agree with, but could respect and work with. In fact, "Obamacare" pretty much follows the private sector oriented reform plans of Bob Dole. If Obama were a liberal he'd have gone with single payer, and negotiated tough price concessions with pharmaceutical manufacturers (which is the source of America's runaway heath care spending). You'd have seen banks regulated or broken apart, and criminal investigations in response to the financial crisis of '08, not an attempt to put the system back together again the way it was before the crash.

In fact Obama is very much the kind of president Dole would have been: an economic pragmatist, a diplomatic multilateralist, and an aggressive user of military force where he perceives an imminent threat to national security.

If you want to stop state intrusion into private affairs, you've got to stop being afraid, and convince others around you to stop being afraid. The more fear there is in the political climate, the more impunity the government has in its actions.

Liberals got behind Obama in '08 for the same reason we got behind Obamacare: we backed the best alternative achievable in a climate of fear -- a climate, by the way, that makes the state internal security apparatus feel empowered to do anything it wants in the search for terrorists.

I do. He's not liberal at all. Having said that, I still prefer him over anyone on the "New Right."

KneelandBobDylan wrote:I do. He's not liberal at all. Having said that, I still prefer him over anyone on the "New Right."

Pretty much this. The alternative is hostage to the tea party types. Oregon used to have two Republican Senators that were in some ways more "liberal" than Obama, especially Bob Packwood..who, sadly, could not keep his hands to himself, even though his politics for women were top notch. Mark Hatfield was a good man. Neither of them would survive in today's GOP.

That's why people calling Obama a socialist are so fucking nuts.

When some in the current GOP complain how the crazies have taken over, they can only blame their own party structure. "Liberal" Republicans tend to sit out the primaries, whereas the nutbars vote and so more centrist pols get booted by a minority of their own party.

It's hilarious how white trash racist idiots who don't know jack shit about politics see Obama as this radical liberal. Obama is easily the most conservative post WW II democratic president.

vlad wrote:

KneelandBobDylan wrote:I do. He's not liberal at all. Having said that, I still prefer him over anyone on the "New Right."

Pretty much this. The alternative is hostage to the tea party types. Oregon used to have two Republican Senators that were in some ways more "liberal" than Obama, especially Bob Packwood..who, sadly, could not keep his hands to himself, even though his politics for women were top notch. Mark Hatfield was a good man. Neither of them would survive in today's GOP.

That's why people calling Obama a socialist are so fucking nuts.

When some in the current GOP complain how the crazies have taken over, they can only blame their own party structure. "Liberal" Republicans tend to sit out the primaries, whereas the nutbars vote and so more centrist pols get booted by a minority of their own party.

Well, parties change. The Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act and the Dems were against it in the 60's. I couldn't see that happening now.

Who knows what these parties will look like in 10-20 years.

I mean, I'm sure they'll both still be a mess, but they might be a different kind of mess.

I will say though the radicals on both sides are fucking scary.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-t ... -terrorism

brotherplanet wrote:

vlad wrote:

KneelandBobDylan wrote:I do. He's not liberal at all. Having said that, I still prefer him over anyone on the "New Right."

Pretty much this. The alternative is hostage to the tea party types. Oregon used to have two Republican Senators that were in some ways more "liberal" than Obama, especially Bob Packwood..who, sadly, could not keep his hands to himself, even though his politics for women were top notch. Mark Hatfield was a good man. Neither of them would survive in today's GOP.

That's why people calling Obama a socialist are so fucking nuts.

When some in the current GOP complain how the crazies have taken over, they can only blame their own party structure. "Liberal" Republicans tend to sit out the primaries, whereas the nutbars vote and so more centrist pols get booted by a minority of their own party.

Well, parties change. The Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act and the Dems were against it in the 60's. I couldn't see that happening now.

Who knows what these parties will look like in 10-20 years.

I mean, I'm sure they'll both still be a mess, but they might be a different kind of mess.

I will say though the radicals on both sides are fucking scary.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-t ... -terrorism

Oh for fuck's sake....I am tired of repeating my self on here about this old canard, the Dems not supporting the CRA in the '60's.

Screw it, here you go:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Righ ... ote_totals

If you bother to look, there were more Republicans against it than Democrats, exept for the Dixiecrats who are now GOP anyway.

brotherplanet wrote:
Well, parties change. The Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act and the Dems were against it in the 60's. I couldn't see that happening now.

Who knows what these parties will look like in 10-20 years.

I mean, I'm sure they'll both still be a mess, but they might be a different kind of mess.

I will say though the radicals on both sides are fucking scary.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-t ... -terrorism

The Dixiecrats(Southern Democrats) were Democrats in name only. There was nothing liberal or progressive about them. The only reason they were still registered Democrats is because they had a severe case of butthurt 100 years later about the ass beating Lincoln and the minority Abolition wing of the Republican party handed their grandpappies during the Civil War or as they like to call it "The War of Northern Aggression"

I'm generalizing here a little but The Dixiecrats, Whigs and Free Soiler Republicans were pretty much cut from the same kind of cloth. The Whigs platform was very influential in shaping southern politics during Reconstruction. The Whig Party was split over the issue of Slavery and it was their downfall. The Southern Whigs were for it while some of the northern Whigs were either against it or ambivalent about it.

At least that's how I understand it.

Agreed about Obama. He isn't left enough for me, but I guess we had to start somewhere as regards health reform.