I realize this is old news to this group, but the article nicely catalogs both how different and un-different (to coin a word) Obama has been from your typical political hack, especially in regards to regulations.
President Ronald Reagan did not make any bones about his intention to reverse the New Deal economics when he set out to promote Neoliberal economics. Likewise, president George W Bush did not conceal his agenda of aggressive, unilateral militarism abroad and curtailment of civil liberties at home.
There is a major similarity and a key difference between these two presidents, on the one hand, and President Barack Obama, on the other. The similarity lies in the fact that, like his predecessor, Obama faithfully, and indeed vigorously, carries out both the Neoliberal and militaristic policies he inherited. The difference is that while Reagan and Bush were, more or less, truthful to their constituents, Obama is not: while catering to the powerful interests vested in finance and military capitals, he pretends to be an agent of “change” and a source of “hope” for the masses.
There are also, of course, re-election considerations here. And here it seems that the president’s team is pinning his chances for re-election on big business and big media; confident that once he is able to win their hearts and minds, they will, in turn, be able to manipulate the public to vote for him – just as they did in the 2008 election.
And we Americans are nothing if not manipulatable.
I for one, welcome our new Barack Obama overlord!
Hi, Spellingnazi here.
No hyphen in reelection. That was in the article twice—so not Uncle Dave’ fault.
The word should probably be “manipulable.” There is a word “manipulatable” but there is no “tea” in it.
[I believe that should have been, “Uncle Dave’s fault.” – ed.]
I got my first whiff of this when he announced there would be no investigation even into the Bush acitivities, then more when he said he was “for” various changes but would have to be “pushed” to do it. Thats no kind of leader.
On a tangent, I was watching “Horton Hears a Who” and got tired of the fairytale, so I switched to “Dungeons and Dragons” and got tired of the fairytale, so I switched to Megan Kelly==she was going on about how Michelle Obama was forcing kiddies to eat government approved food. One guest agreed, the other said “No one is forcing anyone to do anything, its just a recommendation.” Kelly shot back: “I agree, but many people feel pressured to do whatever the First Lady says.” and the retarded guest said: “Oh yes they will make you do it, just look at Obamacare!”
I know its 1100AM, but where is the Adult Programing? Democracy Now not on for a few hours.
Ha, ha.
Tollybong–I admire your nit picking. Good to find a little edumacation among the droppings. “Between” would be incorrect, but sounds so much better. Language. Why should old rules control?
Reagan as a “neoliberal” – congratulations, the trip through the looking glass is now complete.
Good catch lakelady. We’ve all heard Raygun was too liberal to be nominated by today’s teabag whipped Republican Party. Watching McCain run to the right last election was a hoot–the footrace in 2012 should be even more dislocating.
Still, I think our Asian taskmasters need a dictionary. Repealing the New Deal legislation as the Pukes are hell bent to do, is NOT neo-liberal or neo anything else. Its just retards humping==my new meme for 2011.
He better not pin his hopes on reelection on big business!
“To understand President Obama’s speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Monday morning, it’s helpful to think of the president as an aggrieved parent and the business community as the teenager who’s sick and tired of the rules of the house.”
http://cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030898-503544.html
BTW, have you rabid Obama fans finally woken up to the reality that Obama is going to go down in history as one of America’s top 5 worst presidents??
blah, blah, blah, blah
Also noticing that he didn’t spell “president” with a capital “P” when referencing President Bush.
Disagree with the man all you want. I don’t care. I absolutely hated President Clinton and can’t STAND President Obama, but the Office of the President still deserves my respect, regardless of my personal political convictions.
Salute the rank, not the man. That’s what a patriot does.
Ah Yea–I am disappointed by Obama’s performance in office “but” I can’t imagine ANY Republican in the field worthy to lick his balls.
How are you so insolated to think the Republican assault on the middle class somehow benefits you over the longer term?
Silly PUKES, proud to cut their own throats and the throats of their kiddies under the dogmatic label of “freedom.”
Silly PUKES.
Alfie, you do crack me up. What a waste of space. Say Alfie–can you check your history file and report back what sites you have visited in the last 24 hours? I’d like to see the disease vectors at work and don’t think I could find them any other way.
Thank you.
Barack Obama, the Black President.
There ya go.
How about a Mexican next?
Why would anyone WANT to “lick his balls”?
You’ve probably heard this all before, but it helps to get a bit of reality in the election process.
From what I’ve seen of candidates in the past, many of them start out to the left or to the right (to get the hearts and minds of their own parties), with a few moderates sitting on the fence.
By election time, every candidate has headed for the center, hoping to get fence sitters to come home to the candidate’s Party.
We usually find out who wins only when the ballots are counted, because the totals are usually close. The exception is when one of the candidates fouls up badly, and the other candidate wins by a landslide.
Afterward: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Not much changes. FDR was an exception.
#7
1. Andrew Johnson
2. Richard Nixon
3. Herbert Hoover
4. Ulysses Grant
5. Warren Harding
How the smeg is he to break into that group?
He still has to get past people like Harrison, Buchanan, Coolidge, Pierce and Wilson to get to fifth.
How is that going to happen?
Cursor_
#18–Frogger==I imagine few would “want to” lick Obama’s balls, but the point made was about those “worthy” enough to lick his balls. Totally different trope arising from the venacular of the street. A construct, a metaphor. Not to be taken literally.
Tollybong? There is a better term starting with c and maybe con but I can’t recall it just now. Rats.
#20
I have to take exception with your second choice.
😉
Alfred:
Just out of idle curiosity, you want to end:
– meat inspections
– drug testing and certification
– toxic waste dump cleanup
– policing and regulating of industries that have a proven record of damaging the environment, killing people via bad products, etc if they aren’t monitored and fined
…and so on?
In other words, do you want to return us to a 19th century-level of unregulated horrors all in the name of lowering your taxes?
Eliminating waste and fraud, plus getting rid of many pork projects is one thing. Eliminating all regulation of business is something else.
Behold, Obama! The first WELFARE PRESIDENT!
If Obama wins it will be because he does NOT support elimination of Social Security.
Everything thing else is running against him…
Hi, it’s Spellingnazi again.
hellbent is one word
nitpicking is one word
no o in insulated
Thanks for writing “footrace”—it is indeed one word, no hyphen.
:◃⋑
President Obama’s view of himself:
http://goo.gl/6HJRw
Riddle me this, Uncle Dave — if Obama is such a servant of the corporations, why do the corporations hate him with the heat of a thousand suns?
You saw the reception he got with the Chamber today. Those guys put $$$millions$$$ on the line to defeat Obama and his agenda — and those guys don’t give up their money unless they are highly motivated.
#18, #23 — I’d bet Chris Matthews would love to lick his (Obama’s) balls. As long as no one calls him a tea-bagger.
The differences between the Republicans and Democrats is like the difference between Visa and Mastercard. Coke and Pepsi.
Say Alfie: Upton Sinclair published The Jungle in 1906, which revealed conditions in the meat packing industry in the United States and was a major factor in the establishment of the Pure Food and Drug Act. What time period was it before this when the market place provided clean and safe food?
Saw Modern Marvels on Coke v Pepsi last night. Seems Coke was poisoning people with its soft drinks in the 1880’s. When before that did the market place provide drugs that were clean and safe?
And where is that list of your web resources Alfie? I googled “crazy as a nut gone hatter” and I don’t see you posting there.
The solution is to take the bull by the horns (and I do mean “bull” as in “BS”). Obama will surely be seeking re-election. He should NOT be re-elected based on what he promises, he should be returned to office (or not) based his performance. If that is used as a salient criterion, he’ll be headed for a new position as highly paid agent of corruption – like all the other lobbyists.
>> # 32 foobar said, on February 7th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
>> The differences between the Republicans and Democrats is like the difference between Visa and Mastercard. Coke and Pepsi.
Lordy, save us from people with such horrible political judgment.
Remember in 2000 when the Green SWORE that there was ABSOLUTELY NOT DIFFERENCE between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Bush won because of them.
America would be a very different place had Al Gore been elected. For starters, he would have read the PDB warning that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack the US with airplanes. Secondly, he wouldn’t have raided the Social Security fund to invade the wrong friggin’ country!
America is in the crap can because of Americans who have such abysmal political judgment that they can’t tell the difference between liberals and conservatives.
>> chuck said, on February 7th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
>> #18, #23 — I’d bet Chris Matthews would love to lick his (Obama’s) balls.
Wow! Chuck took a creepy random turn into gay sex!
(and not gay in a good way but, instead, the Ted Haggard-Larry Craig way.)