1. Health care reform (which includes prohibiting health insurance companies from not covering pre-existing conditions and allowing children to be covered until age 26)
2. Dodd-Frank
3. Bailed out auto industry
4. Booted commercial banks out of student loan program
5. Libya intervention
6. Withdrawal from Iraq
7. Started withdrawal from Afghanistan
8.Has proposed major cuts in military spending
9. Was willing to make trillion in dollars in cuts to compromise with Republicans on debt ceiling.
10. Prohibited use of torture
11. Ordered raid on Bin Laden
12. Ended Don't Ask Don't Tell
13. Modified rules for credit card industry making it harder for banks to rip off consumers
14. Created a consumer protection agency (and recess appointed the head of it to get around Republican obstructionism
15. Appointed two women (pro-choice) to tthe court
16. Ordered enforcement of equal pay for women in the workplace
17. Stopped Finanical Crisis from turning into great depression (by stimulus spending, auto bailout, providing liquidity to Banks)
19. . Ordered that DOMA not be defended in court by Justice Department
20. Liffted restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
21. Quicker elections for unionization
22. Greater access to student loans by increased funding and not raising interest rates
23. Cap and Trade
24.Repaired our relations with many world countries that had been damaged by Bush's go it alone policy

That's a pretty good list to me and that is in the face of total Republican opposition to just about everything he tried to do.

Man, you and Steve have no idea what socialism means. The way you throw around the word socialist, it's like when Fox Business News called Warren Buffet a socialist:

That is why Buffett is right, and that is why Eric Bolling looked so silly last week when attempting to label Buffett a socialist on Fox Business. “Is he completely a socialist and playing into Mr. Obama’s hands of tax anybody who makes money and give it to people who don’t work,” said Bolling.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzingainsights/2011/08/23/calling-warren-buffett-a-socialist-is-ludicrous/

Conservatives hurt their arguments when they use words incorrectly. To informed, relative moderates, like myself, (yes, I know you think I'm a socialist, but I'm not) it's just off-putting, and anti-intellectual. Call him liberal (which is arguable), call him progressive (which is very arguable), call him a Democrat (yep), but the label socialist just makes you look-- and I apologize in advance--ignorant.

Just curious Ruff. Which if the 24 points offered do you consider "socialist" and why?

A socialist would demand a balancing of the budget.

Freeman, again, you confuse alleged "accomplishments" with "leadership."

freeman2 wrote:1. Health care reform (which includes prohibiting health insurance companies from not covering pre-existing conditions and allowing children to be covered until age 26)

How did President Obama "lead" on this (that is the topic)? Did he write it? What did he actually DO (other than sign it)?

2. Dodd-Frank

Ditto

3. Bailed out auto industry

And, basically, followed Romney's prescription. It was a structured bankruptcy.

4. Booted commercial banks out of student loan program

Which put the government in charge of setting rates, rather than the market. Now, he's complaining about the rates that were set.

5. Libya intervention

How did he lead? From behind? That's not leadership. If this thing failed, he could blame others. Since it succeeded, he's taking credit. This is the antithesis of leadership.

6. Withdrawal from Iraq

Based on parameters established by Bush. How is this leadership on his part?

7. Started withdrawal from Afghanistan

Bold?

He surged troops in.

8.Has proposed major cuts in military spending

Bush proposed some money be paid into individual accounts instead of SSI. Was that "bold?"

Proposals are not leadership necessarily.

9. Was willing to make trillion in dollars in cuts to compromise with Republicans on debt ceiling.

You're making that up. Please post a link with the President's specific proposal.

10. Prohibited use of torture

So did Bush.

11. Ordered raid on Bin Laden

With memo intended to excuse him if things went sideways. Could not help himself in taking way too much credit--as if he personally took Bin Laden out barehanded.

12. Ended Don't Ask Don't Tell

Yes he did--against wishes of most in the military.

13. Modified rules for credit card industry making it harder for banks to rip off consumers

And, made credit harder to obtain--good for him!

14. Created a consumer protection agency (and recess appointed the head of it to get around Republican obstructionism

Good point--violating the Constitution is bold!

15. Appointed two women (pro-choice) to tthe court

Standard fare for those who hate the Constitution. Not really "bold."

Boldness is credited to Senator Graham. Knowing it was unpopular with Republicans, he voted with Democrats to approve Sotomayor. That's brave.

16. Ordered enforcement of equal pay for women in the workplace

Interesting. Why are Democrats trying to pass yet another bill to do the same thing?

17. Stopped Finanical Crisis from turning into great depression (by stimulus spending, auto bailout, providing liquidity to Banks)

The day that spending a trillion dollars on nothing is "bold" is the day I become a socialist.

19. . Ordered that DOMA not be defended in court by Justice Department

Well, it is bold to fail to uphold his Constitutional oath. Full props there. It's not every President who outright violates the Constitution.

20. Liffted restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research

There were no restrictions other than Federal funding.

21. Quicker elections for unionization

Nope, no card-check yet.

22. Greater access to student loans by increased funding and not raising interest rates

So brave is he--with other people's money! He's is boldly spending like no President before! Such leadership! Wow! Who could ever imagine someone being steadfast and courageous enough to spend the US into bankruptcy?

23. Cap and Trade

Didn't pass.

24.Repaired our relations with many world countries that had been damaged by Bush's go it alone policy

???

Really? Like Russia? Gave up our missile defense sites in Eastern Europe for . . . nothing? Could not get Russian help with Iran or Syria? Promised Putin he'll give him a deal after the election and won't tel the American people what it is? That's bold?

That's a pretty good list to me and that is in the face of total Republican opposition to just about everything he tried to do.

Some are executive orders, which are unstoppable. Some never became law. Most he did not lead on at all.

geojanes wrote:Conservatives hurt their arguments when they use words incorrectly. To informed, relative moderates, like myself, (yes, I know you think I'm a socialist, but I'm not) . . .

Relative moderate who would not vote for a Republican for President? You are left of center.

. . . it's just off-putting, and anti-intellectual. Call him liberal (which is arguable), call him progressive (which is very arguable), call him a Democrat (yep), but the label socialist just makes you look-- and I apologize in advance--ignorant.

President Obama is a liberal. He is a progressive. Given freedom, he would reveal himself to be what he is . . . a socialist. You can call it whatever you want. He knows this is not a country given to sudden and radical shifts, so he's taken more of an incremental approach, but he has never slowed in his desire to take from the wealthy and give to the impoverished. He has done all he can to increase the power of the Federal government, circumvent the Constitution, and will continue to push for socialistic policies until the day he is out of office. Alinsky and dreams from his father are his guideposts, not individual freedom and the Constitution.

We disagree. That doesn't make you ignorant. That makes you more amenable to his goals. You like what he does and how he thinks, so you resent anything resembling an epithet being attached to him. That's fine.

However, it does not make you correct.

That he is not marching on International Worker's Day or having his picture taken with the hammer and sickle in the background does not change what he, Barney Frank, George Miller, Nancy Pelosi, and many other Democrats are: socialists who understand the need to boil the frog by slowly turning up the heat.

We could have a debate on the merits of Obama's policies, but the challenge was thrown down for us liberals to list things that demonstrate he has been a strong leader. You may not like his policies but I don't think the criticism that he has been a weak leader sticks.

I agree with George's comments (and Ricky's question). Define what you mean by socialism and then show which of Obama's policies are socialist. Shouldn't be too hard. If you can't do it, then at most you can argue that he is a closet socialist (which is pretty meaningless if you think about it).

In principle I agree that you should not have to agree to compromise on fundamental principles. But politics is about compromise and the Republican Party has become a party that will not compromise. (the refusal to consider any tax increase no matter what is evidence of this intransigence) We need a government that can solve problems and if we have reached a point that the two sides are so far apart that they cannot compromise (evidence of this is that from what I understand that the most liberal Republican in the House is now more conservative than the most conservative Democrat) then we cannot solve the nation's pressing problems. You start to wonder are we really a nation if we cannot agree on fundamental principles

Oh Steve, you are so funny. If Obama walked across the Potomac you would take the position that it showed he couldn't swim.

You criticize every point as non indicative of leadership then criticize this one:

12. Ended Don't Ask Don't Tell

steve

Yes he did--against wishes of most in the military.

because he didn't follow ...
Sucking and blowing are you ?
I get it . You hate Obama and think he's a dangerous radical socialist. So it should be easy to demonstrate which of his claimed accomplishments are socialist and why this is so...

By the way, Obama just endorsed Gay marriage...
Now, since the majority of Americans already support gay marriage
source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half- ... riage.aspx
maybe thats not leadership? I'm sure as the self appointed arbiter of what is classed as "leadership" we can count on Steve to illustrate why he fails here too...

Interesting that cultural issues are being brought forward by the Dems now too? This is going to energize a large segment of his base, especially the young, and divert a little attention from the economy...

I didn't confuse accomplishments with leadership, Steve. Obama has strongly led the country in a center-left direction as shown by his long list of accomplishments. (by the way, google debt ceiling crisis to find that Obama was willing to come to an agreement with trillions in cuts over ten years) If he were a weak president you wouldn't mind him so much.

freeman2 wrote:We could have a debate on the merits of Obama's policies, but the challenge was thrown down for us liberals to list things that demonstrate he has been a strong leader. You may not like his policies but I don't think the criticism that he has been a weak leader sticks.

This is what I actually said:

I have created this forum for liberals to brag about all the examples of bold, courageous, and steadfast leadership of President Obama.

I didn't say, "Please list bills you like that Obama signed into law." I'm talking about measures where he was out front. I think ending DADT is one of them. I think it was wrong, but at least he led.

He did not take the lead on most of the "accomplishments" you all have listed. It is not up to me to prove he didn't. If he did, you ought to be able to prove it. Did he lead Democrats through "Obamacare" or was that Harry Reid? Who wrote the bill? Obama's main contribution: lying to pro-life Democrats. If you want to claim that as leadership, feel free.

I agree with George's comments (and Ricky's question). Define what you mean by socialism and then show which of Obama's policies are socialist.

Here:

A socialist economic system would consist of an organisation of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time.[5][6] Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution.
As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Libertarian socialism proposes to direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership over the means of production.[citation needed] Conversely, democratic socialism seeks to propagate the ideals of socialism within the context of a democratic system.

Source added: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Tweak the wording a bit and President Obama is very plainly a democratic socialist. He rails against greed, corporations, and profits, talks about "fairness," even though he knows nearly half pay no income tax whatsoever. He believes in income redistribution and works to further that at every opportunity. He is for increasing State control over everything from oil production to what foods we consume (which will become even more invasive if Obamacare is upheld as the State will have a "compelling interest" in controlling our weight to keep healthcare costs down). He is against freedom of individuals and far more concerned with equality of outcome than equality of opportunity.

But politics is about compromise and the Republican Party has become a party that will not compromise. (the refusal to consider any tax increase no matter what is evidence of this intransigence)

Just untrue. The GOP favored and Ryan codified the idea of reducing rates while reducing deductions (primarily for the rich and corporations). The net effect would have been an increase in revenues, but it is not done the way Democrats want. They have steadfastly refused to even vote on a budget in the Senate--possibly out of fear that something could get done in committee. The President's budget has failed to garner a single Democratic vote over the last two years.

Someone is intransigent. His name is Barack Obama.

Where is his leadership on the budget? On reducing debt and deficit?

*chirp*

rickyp wrote:By the way, Obama just endorsed Gay marriage...
Now, since the majority of Americans already support gay marriage
source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half- ... riage.aspx
maybe thats not leadership? I'm sure as the self appointed arbiter of what is classed as "leadership" we can count on Steve to illustrate why he fails here too...

Interesting that cultural issues are being brought forward by the Dems now too? This is going to energize a large segment of his base, especially the young, and divert a little attention from the economy...

Good for the President!

Polls?

How about actual votes?

Still think North Carolina is a swing state? Think this will help him in Florida?

North Carolina is the last state in the South to add such an amendment, and supporters hoped for a resounding victory.

Incomplete returns show the amendment up 61.05 percent to 38.95 percent.

Primary turnout was heavy. Though there were many other races on the ballot, including primaries for statewide offices and congressional seats, the amendment appeared to drive much of the political discussion.

How is reducing loopholes in exchange for lowering rates a net increase in taxes?

"As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent."
Mitt Romney 1994

freeman2 wrote:I didn't confuse accomplishments with leadership, Steve. Obama has strongly led the country in a center-left direction as shown by his long list of accomplishments. (by the way, google debt ceiling crisis to find that Obama was willing to come to an agreement with trillions in cuts over ten years) If he were a weak president you wouldn't mind him so much.

If you don't know the difference between leading and signing, I don't know how to help you.