Something is annoying me

[Simfan34]

Obama has caved in on almost every issue.

Tax cuts? Renew them all. Heck, I was against that.
Health care? A nice little mandate, not much else. Fair enough.
Carbon tax? Nah. Cap and trade. Huzzah!
Afghanistan? Stay the course!
Gay rights? We're evolving.
Balancing the budget? 83% spending cuts.

If this guy was a Republican, I'd seriously vote for him. After some hesitation. But if he was running for the nomination in 2012 (and Huntsman wasn't running), I'd vote for him in a heartbeat (if he had this record as a governor or whatnot).

So what's annoying me? Our liberal atheist Muslim socialist communist fascist President has turned into a Republican. That's great. But instead of showing how this proves that their platform is brilliant, the Republicans have chosen to run away from their successes. Was it not just in 2009 that conservatives' worst fear was a single-payer system? Last year it was the public option. Now it's the mandate. At this rate, next year the idea everyone should have health care will be communism. Oh wait, that's already happened.

Healthcare mandates? A Republican idea.
Cap and trade? A Republican idea.
Civil unions? A Republican idea.
Afghan surge? A Republican idea.
Spending cuts? A Republican idea. (plus two percentage points)

SO WHY ON EARTH ARE WE RUNNING FROM THEM LIKE THEY'RE CANCER?!?!?!?!?!

[courts]

Shut up

[tpfkaw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29#Concern_troll

[Simfan34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29#Concern_troll

I take offense to that.

[specific_name]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29#Concern_troll

I take offense to that.

Assuming you are a new poster, there a lot of people who've been banned and they come back and make accounts or otherwise troll. Everyone is skeptical of people with a low post count if they make theads like this especially. If you are for real, don't take any offense.

[Simfan34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29#Concern_troll

I take offense to that.

Assuming you are a new poster, there a lot of people who've been banned and they come back and make accounts or otherwise troll. Everyone is skeptical of people with a low post count if they make theads like this especially. If you are for real, don't take any offense.

Oh. Okay. Thanks for pointing that out.

I have a timeline, if that helps.

[NVGonzalez]

Obama has caved in on almost every issue.

Tax cuts? Renew them all. Heck, I was against that.
Health care? A nice little mandate, not much else. Fair enough.
Carbon tax? Nah. Cap and trade. Huzzah!
Afghanistan? Stay the course!
Gay rights? We're evolving.
Balancing the budget? 83% spending cuts.

If this guy was a Republican, I'd seriously vote for him. After some hesitation. But if he was running for the nomination in 2012 (and Huntsman wasn't running), I'd vote for him in a heartbeat (if he had this record as a governor or whatnot).

So what's annoying me? Our liberal atheist Muslim socialist communist fascist President has turned into a Republican. That's great. But instead of showing how this proves that their platform is brilliant, the Republicans have chosen to run away from their successes. Was it not just in 2009 that conservatives' worst fear was a single-payer system? Last year it was the public option. Now it's the mandate. At this rate, next year the idea everyone should have health care will be communism. Oh wait, that's already happened.

Healthcare mandates? A Republican idea.
Cap and trade? A Republican idea.
Civil unions? A Republican idea.
Afghan surge? A Republican idea.
Spending cuts? A Republican idea. (plus two percentage points)

SO WHY ON EARTH ARE WE RUNNING FROM THEM LIKE THEY'RE CANCER?!?!?!?!?!

I will give a serious answer here.

Because they want to defeat Obama. They don't care what it takes. That is their main mission. He can turn into a teabagger conservative and they would turn into total liberal hippies. A fine example was when 5 Republicans proposed the budget commission and Obama embraced it. Then they turned all against it.

[WillK]

You short of gave the answer: "At this rate, next year the idea everyone should have health care will be communism." 

If the opponent adopts GOP moderate positions, the GOP can then reframe the issue to pull the debate even more towards its goals. 

Obama has caved in on almost every issue.

Tax cuts? Renew them all. Heck, I was against that.
Health care? A nice little mandate, not much else. Fair enough.
Carbon tax? Nah. Cap and trade. Huzzah!
Afghanistan? Stay the course!
Gay rights? We're evolving.
Balancing the budget? 83% spending cuts.

If this guy was a Republican, I'd seriously vote for him. After some hesitation. But if he was running for the nomination in 2012 (and Huntsman wasn't running), I'd vote for him in a heartbeat (if he had this record as a governor or whatnot).

So what's annoying me? Our liberal atheist Muslim socialist communist fascist President has turned into a Republican. That's great. But instead of showing how this proves that their platform is brilliant, the Republicans have chosen to run away from their successes. Was it not just in 2009 that conservatives' worst fear was a single-payer system? Last year it was the public option. Now it's the mandate. At this rate, next year the idea everyone should have health care will be communism. Oh wait, that's already happened.

Healthcare mandates? A Republican idea.
Cap and trade? A Republican idea.
Civil unions? A Republican idea.
Afghan surge? A Republican idea.
Spending cuts? A Republican idea. (plus two percentage points)

SO WHY ON EARTH ARE WE RUNNING FROM THEM LIKE THEY'RE CANCER?!?!?!?!?!

[opebo]

He's a Democrat - and the Democratic party is a right-wing party.

[Paul Kemp]

Obama has caved in on almost every issue.

Tax cuts? Renew them all. Heck, I was against that.
Health care? A nice little mandate, not much else. Fair enough.
Carbon tax? Nah. Cap and trade. Huzzah!
Afghanistan? Stay the course!
Gay rights? We're evolving.
Balancing the budget? 83% spending cuts.

If this guy was a Republican, I'd seriously vote for him. After some hesitation. But if he was running for the nomination in 2012 (and Huntsman wasn't running), I'd vote for him in a heartbeat (if he had this record as a governor or whatnot).

So what's annoying me? Our liberal atheist Muslim socialist communist fascist President has turned into a Republican. That's great. But instead of showing how this proves that their platform is brilliant, the Republicans have chosen to run away from their successes. Was it not just in 2009 that conservatives' worst fear was a single-payer system? Last year it was the public option. Now it's the mandate. At this rate, next year the idea everyone should have health care will be communism. Oh wait, that's already happened.

Healthcare mandates? A Republican idea.
Cap and trade? A Republican idea.
Civil unions? A Republican idea.
Afghan surge? A Republican idea.
Spending cuts? A Republican idea. (plus two percentage points)

SO WHY ON EARTH ARE WE RUNNING FROM THEM LIKE THEY'RE CANCER?!?!?!?!?!

So why aren't you going to vote for Obama? Because he lacks an (R) next to his name?

[TerroristFistJab]

THis is why the Obama is  a socialist, marxist, Mau Mau revolutionist,  talk is bizarre to me. The man has basically been a  Liberal /Rockefeller republican. 

If you read me his list of accomplishments in office i would think  McCain circa 2002  was the current president.

[Simfan34]

Obama has caved in on almost every issue.

Tax cuts? Renew them all. Heck, I was against that.
Health care? A nice little mandate, not much else. Fair enough.
Carbon tax? Nah. Cap and trade. Huzzah!
Afghanistan? Stay the course!
Gay rights? We're evolving.
Balancing the budget? 83% spending cuts.

If this guy was a Republican, I'd seriously vote for him. After some hesitation. But if he was running for the nomination in 2012 (and Huntsman wasn't running), I'd vote for him in a heartbeat (if he had this record as a governor or whatnot).

So what's annoying me? Our liberal atheist Muslim socialist communist fascist President has turned into a Republican. That's great. But instead of showing how this proves that their platform is brilliant, the Republicans have chosen to run away from their successes. Was it not just in 2009 that conservatives' worst fear was a single-payer system? Last year it was the public option. Now it's the mandate. At this rate, next year the idea everyone should have health care will be communism. Oh wait, that's already happened.

Healthcare mandates? A Republican idea.
Cap and trade? A Republican idea.
Civil unions? A Republican idea.
Afghan surge? A Republican idea.
Spending cuts? A Republican idea. (plus two percentage points)

SO WHY ON EARTH ARE WE RUNNING FROM THEM LIKE THEY'RE CANCER?!?!?!?!?!

So why aren't you going to vote for Obama? Because he lacks an (R) next to his name?

Because that's not his platform?

[Paul Kemp]

Obama has caved in on almost every issue.

Tax cuts? Renew them all. Heck, I was against that.
Health care? A nice little mandate, not much else. Fair enough.
Carbon tax? Nah. Cap and trade. Huzzah!
Afghanistan? Stay the course!
Gay rights? We're evolving.
Balancing the budget? 83% spending cuts.

If this guy was a Republican, I'd seriously vote for him. After some hesitation. But if he was running for the nomination in 2012 (and Huntsman wasn't running), I'd vote for him in a heartbeat (if he had this record as a governor or whatnot).

So what's annoying me? Our liberal atheist Muslim socialist communist fascist President has turned into a Republican. That's great. But instead of showing how this proves that their platform is brilliant, the Republicans have chosen to run away from their successes. Was it not just in 2009 that conservatives' worst fear was a single-payer system? Last year it was the public option. Now it's the mandate. At this rate, next year the idea everyone should have health care will be communism. Oh wait, that's already happened.

Healthcare mandates? A Republican idea.
Cap and trade? A Republican idea.
Civil unions? A Republican idea.
Afghan surge? A Republican idea.
Spending cuts? A Republican idea. (plus two percentage points)

SO WHY ON EARTH ARE WE RUNNING FROM THEM LIKE THEY'RE CANCER?!?!?!?!?!

So why aren't you going to vote for Obama? Because he lacks an (R) next to his name?

Because that's not his platform?

If this guy was a Republican, I'd seriously vote for him. After some hesitation. But if he was running for the nomination in 2012 (and Huntsman wasn't running), I'd vote for him in a heartbeat (if he had this record as a governor or whatnot).

So what's annoying me? Our liberal atheist Muslim socialist communist fascist President has turned into a Republican. That's great.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Obama has caved in on almost every issue.

Tax cuts? Renew them all. Heck, I was against that.
Health care? A nice little mandate, not much else. Fair enough.
Carbon tax? Nah. Cap and trade. Huzzah!
Afghanistan? Stay the course!
Gay rights? We're evolving.
Balancing the budget? 83% spending cuts.

If this guy was a Republican, I'd seriously vote for him. After some hesitation. But if he was running for the nomination in 2012 (and Huntsman wasn't running), I'd vote for him in a heartbeat (if he had this record as a governor or whatnot).

So what's annoying me? Our liberal atheist Muslim socialist communist fascist President has turned into a Republican. That's great. But instead of showing how this proves that their platform is brilliant, the Republicans have chosen to run away from their successes. Was it not just in 2009 that conservatives' worst fear was a single-payer system? Last year it was the public option. Now it's the mandate. At this rate, next year the idea everyone should have health care will be communism. Oh wait, that's already happened.

Healthcare mandates? A Republican idea.
Cap and trade? A Republican idea.
Civil unions? A Republican idea.
Afghan surge? A Republican idea.
Spending cuts? A Republican idea. (plus two percentage points)

SO WHY ON EARTH ARE WE RUNNING FROM THEM LIKE THEY'RE CANCER?!?!?!?!?!

So why aren't you going to vote for Obama? Because he lacks an (R) next to his name?

Because that's not his platform?

You know, instead of hoping that that Republicans will become like the Democrats anytime soon, you should probably just switch parties. Would be much easier.

[opebo]

THis is why the Obama is  a socialist, marxist, Mau Mau revolutionist,  talk is bizarre to me. The man has basically been a  Liberal /Rockefeller republican. 

If you read me his list of accomplishments in office i would think  McCain circa 2002  was the current president.

Not really, modern Democrats are considerably to the right of where 'liberal/Rockefeller' Republicans were.

[Antonio the Sixth]

When a president elected by left-wingers acts as a right-winger in power, it moves the political center further to the right, and spurs the other side to become even more radical. It already happened with Clinton, and Obama has continued the trend.

[anvi]

I think Antonio is on to something with regard to what is annoying you, Simfan24, but I'd put it a little differently.

Clinton wasn't a left-winger.  He helped found the DLC and then in his first presidential campaign dragged the Dems kicking and screaming to the center.  He "triangulated" on purpose.  He did get beat a few times, but this strategy was, particularly after Congress changed hands in '94, pretty successful; it got him reelected and produced lots of legislation he was able to pass. 

Obama has never been a left-winger either; he has always been mostly a centrist-reformer type, but more a conciliator than someone with his own legislative agenda.  Now, the GOP does not want to get hooked by the triangulation strategy again.  So, we get this dance where, with policies which you rightly note are fundamentally of GOP invention, when Obama moves one step toward them, the Pubbies move two steps right, and if Obama moves two steps toward them, the Pubbies move four steps right.  It all ends up being a pretty ugly dance in terms of crafting good legislation.  But, in terms of election politics, it does something for the GOP, it highlights differences that feed into a polarization narrative, and that gives something for people to choose between when they go to the polls.

The last real left-winger president was LBJ.  In terms of fiscal and government policy (not necessarily social policy), the "center" of U.S. politics has been moving steadily right ever since.

[specific_name]

I think anvikshiki said it about right. Too many people on the left are thinking Obama is really "one of us," when really he's thoroughly neoliberal, a pro-war internationalist and generally cozy with power elite on Wall Street. He never could have raised the kind of money he did, especially from big banks, if he was really anti-capitalist or interested standing up for the poor beyond token resistance. He knows how the system works and has always worked by its rules.

He's merely sticking to the strategy that the Democrats had since the late 70's/80's, which is to stay close to Wall Street and use the power of government to create a good regulatory environment for the big guys. Sure he's done a few things that I would call positive, but he can't really go after the people that created this crisis when they contribute to Democrats and depend of corporate welfare.

[courts]

I think Antonio is on to something with regard to what is annoying you, Simfan24, but I'd put it a little differently.

Clinton wasn't a left-winger.  He helped found the DLC and then in his first presidential campaign dragged the Dems kicking and screaming to the center.  He "triangulated" on purpose.  He did get beat a few times, but this strategy was, particularly after Congress changed hands in '94, pretty successful; it got him reelected and produced lots of legislation he was able to pass.  

Obama has never been a left-winger either; he has always been mostly a centrist-reformer type, but more a conciliator than someone with his own legislative agenda.  Now, the GOP does not want to get hooked by the triangulation strategy again.  So, we get this dance where, with policies which you rightly note are fundamentally of GOP invention, when Obama moves one step toward them, the Pubbies move two steps right, and if Obama moves two steps toward them, the Pubbies move four steps right.  It all ends up being a pretty ugly dance in terms of crafting good legislation.  But, in terms of election politics, it does something for the GOP, it highlights differences that feed into a polarization narrative, and that gives something for people to choose between when they go to the polls.

The last real left-winger president was LBJ.  In terms of fiscal and government policy (not necessarily social policy), the "center" of U.S. politics has been moving steadily right ever since.

If fiscal policy had really swung so far to the 'right' since then we wouldn't have had such massive entitlement expansions under Reagan and Bush or various departments growing (or in some cases, being created) or the federal register continuing to balloon or any of the subsidies and tax breaks and bail outs enacted since 1981. Those are not 'small government' or 'free market' policies.

Here's what I think really happened in the '70s and after wards: the 'right' for all intents and purposes gave up on 'smaller government' as anything other than a buzzword/euphemism. They still throw it around but the bulk of the Republicans knows the voters don't really want any meaningful cuts in their programs, just for future beneficiaries at most. And they know that wall street and the rest of the two-party system's donors would never go for rolling back any of the above policies in any meaningful way. That's just not how you do business, especially when you're in perpetual campaign mode and rarely read any of the bills you sign anyway.

So instead of cutting government spending or RESTORING THE CONSTITUTION111 or any of the usual libertarian-sounding buzzwords the Tea Partiers and other people throw around the Republicans and a very large amount of Moderate Democrats focused on racialized issues like welfare or 'law and order' (drug war, death penalty, etc.) or the modern war on terror... Because they were crowd pleasers and gave them more power to regulate people's lives and make more money. And both sides basically decided to leave affirmative action alone because it has real PR use and having a government that looks 'like america' is more important than one that actually believes in what we were founded on.

[King]

So what's annoying me? Our liberal atheist Muslim socialist communist fascist President has turned into a Republican. That's great.

Simfan is what is wrong with the current state of politics.

"I agree with X on every issue, but I have a sneaking suspicion he might not drink the same brand of beer as me."

[anvi]

Ghost_white,

One of the things that explains the consistently high levels of spending on entitlements from the end of LBJ's term to now is the composition of Congress.  The House of Representatives was controlled by Democrats from 1969-1995, and therefore the Republican presidents who were in office at the time couldn't have made drastic cuts into entitlement spending even if they had wanted to (and I doubt Nixon or Ford did want to do much of this).  Bush 41 wowed to protect social security and based more of his first campaign on tax cuts than on entitlement cuts.  Clinton never advocated returning tax rates to pre-Reagan levels, but instead changed them only modestly.  Bush 43 emphasized tax cuts and not entitlement spending, like his father, even when he had a slim majority in Congress from 2001-2006, and Medicare part-D was a big linchpin in his reelection strategy (even Tom Coburn attests to this).  So, when I say the fiscal policy of the country has been moving steadily right since LBJ, I don't mean that it has been a drastic or sudden shift, but that the ball has moved right first on taxation levels and presently on entitlement cuts ever since LBJ's term.

[WillK]

If fiscal policy had really swung so far to the 'right' since then we wouldn't have had such massive entitlement expansions under Reagan and Bush or various departments growing (or in some cases, being created) or the federal register continuing to balloon or any of the subsidies and tax breaks and bail outs enacted since 1981. Those are not 'small government' or 'free market' policies.

Here's what I think really happened in the '70s and after wards: the 'right' for all intents and purposes gave up on 'smaller government' as anything other than a buzzword/euphemism.

What I think is that you are confused that the 'right' ever meant 'smaller government'. 
Size isnt the defining issue; the issue is the purpose to which it is used. 

[courts]

Ghost_white,

One of the things that explains the consistently high levels of spending on entitlements from the end of LBJ's term to now is the composition of Congress.  The House of Representatives was controlled by Democrats from 1969-1995, and therefore the Republican presidents who were in office at the time couldn't have made drastic cuts into entitlement spending even if they had wanted to (and I doubt Nixon or Ford did want to do much of this).

Reagan had a coalition of Republicans and Boll Weevil/Blue Dog Democrats in his first term, he could have been much more aggressive in making cuts. Not only did he not make any major cuts, he expanded things like the newly-created department of education and increased government involvement in the economy through subsidies... And then after he got his top marginal rate cuts in his 1st term he hiked taxes again, just on the poor and middle class through 'fees.' And of course hiked payroll to pay for medicare and social security, although really if he hadn't we'd probably be talking about President Mondale's term or something now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay.. but what did he actually do? I don't care what they ran on. My whole point is that it's lip service. Bush 41 again expanded government spending/intrusion and hiked taxes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's true, but how many Americans put Clinton 'on the right'? Granted comparatively speaking, after the GOP gains he wound up governing more conservative on average than most post-New Deal presidents but that's not saying much. And again, look at the Contract for America... How much of that did the 'conservative Republicans' actually implement?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right.. which is my point. Bush's economic policies in no way can be called free market or 'fiscally conservative' or even simply 'more fiscally responsible than average.' Bush moved us in a more interventionist direction across the board. Even policies like tax rebates or social security 'privatization' were actually just examples of attempts at government intervention/manipulation of the economy under him. And that was with a Republican majority in control of all three branches and a high approval rating. Why is it then that he did so little especially in comparison to the things he used his '51% mandate' for in his second term? Because the country hadn't shifted more conservative on fiscal issues, not in public policy and certainly not in public opinion... And that's understandable, we had tons of inertia in place and a ballooning amount of aging people used to their benefits or expecting them by that point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, how have we moved 'right' on entitlement cuts at all? There's been some talk now about reducing the levels but that's after decades of letting them expand without any forethought and mostly because the government had already pocketed the money several times. Tax cuts alone don't constitute a more conservative/free market approach to policy making, you can be an interventionist/keynesian and embrace tax cuts or rebates as just another form of government stimulus.

[courts]

If fiscal policy had really swung so far to the 'right' since then we wouldn't have had such massive entitlement expansions under Reagan and Bush or various departments growing (or in some cases, being created) or the federal register continuing to balloon or any of the subsidies and tax breaks and bail outs enacted since 1981. Those are not 'small government' or 'free market' policies.

Here's what I think really happened in the '70s and after wards: the 'right' for all intents and purposes gave up on 'smaller government' as anything other than a buzzword/euphemism.

What I think is that you are confused that the 'right' ever meant 'smaller government'.  
Size isnt the defining issue; the issue is the purpose to which it is used.  

Considering they use that sort of framing all the time and Goldwater called Eisenhower a 'dime store new dealer' and proposed actual cuts and Reagan said the new deal was fascist inspired and attacked medicare and said people should be allowed to pull out of social security into the late 1970s I don't see how anything I said is unreasonable.

[anvi]

I don't consider the fiscal policy of the right to be fundamentally about entitlements, debt or smaller government.  It wasn't too long ago that Cheney is alleged to have said: "deficits don't matter" and Bush was actually touting "compassionate conservatism."  What I consider the fiscal policy of the "right" to be essentially about is marginal tax rates; it was 30 years ago, and it is now.  Most of the push of the right for a long time consisted overtly of changes in marginal tax rates for the wealthy and for businesses.  Those rates dropped a great deal during Reagan's terms, ticked up only very slightly under Bush 41, went up slightly more under Clinton, and then drooped again under Bush.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/

So, even through the "size" of government or cutting entitlement spending have certainly not, as you correctly note, always been an explicit or emphasized agenda item for Republicans in the last forty years, particularly in the legislative practice, they have been made so now by the persistent GOP tax-cutting agenda.   The demand for entitlement cuts right now is fundamentally driven by the tax issue, since deficits have grown so large and so much of the government budget is devoted to them, they cannot be maintained at levels resembling those available now unless we raise taxes again or continue piling up debt.  The point is that it is the tax-cutting agenda, which has been the major priority of the right in the last several decades, that has driven fiscal policy slowly but surely further right.  The fact that we're arguing now over 39% levels for the top bracket instead of 35% levels, rather than arguing over 70% levels rather than 50% levels, strikes me as evidence of the tax-cutting agenda's success over recent decades.  And, at this precise moment, a Democratic president is trying to secure deeper spending cuts, three times as much, over the next ten years than the GOP House so long as they let him push the top bracket up 4% over the course of the next ten years, and, lo and behold, the Republicans won't agree.  "Righty" fiscal policy is about tax rates.