Regarding Steve's opinion of socialism, I think we can safely say that all American presidents of the 20th and 21st Centuries are socialists. Teddy Roosevelt started it off with the damn trust busting and national parks (public parks? Haven't you ever heard of property rights??). Taft pushed for the income tax, Wilson lead its adoption. Don't even get me started on FDR or that damn commie Ike who thought that we needed all this public housing. Dwight David Eisenhower actually said that private roads were no good, we needed a public roadway system. Forget socialist, he was a goddamn commie, but you couldn't call him red because he was a war hero and all that. Bush was perhaps the worst. He nationalized the worlds biggest insurance company, He nationalized America's largest industrial corporation, and he foisted an entire industry with loans & warrants that accrue benefit to the Gov't and hamper them to this very day. He was probably card carrying member of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics and the American Civil Liberties Union.

They're all commie bastards every last one of them. Obama's just at the head of a very long snake.

geojanes wrote: Thank goodness he's finally showing leadership on something that's important! (I know, Biden made him do it.)

I suspect that Biden's comments were orchestrated by the White House. I think that Obama wanted to come out responding to others than actually starting off the conversation himself. A cynic might conclude that the White House wants to distract us from its economic performance, but not suggest that Obama is orchestrating the distraction, but rather just responding to it.

I'm just surmising. Other views appreciated.

On the topic at hand, I don't have a problem with Obama's leadership qualities. Leaders have many different styles.

On his last post, Geo is channeling his inner Beck.

Ray Jay wrote:I suspect that Biden's comments were orchestrated by the White House. I think that Obama wanted to come out responding to others than actually starting off the conversation himself. A cynic might conclude that the White House wants to distract us from its economic performance, but not suggest that Obama is orchestrating the distraction, but rather just responding to it.

I'm just surmising. Other views appreciated.

There is an article on HuffPo today about this. Apparently Obama came to the decision to support gay marriage early in the year but was going to wait until just before the DNC convention in Charlotte to make the announcement. Then Biden made his comment on Meet the Press (I think) and Carney started getting peppered with questions about the President's position about it on Monday so they decided to make the announcement via an interview on Wednesday.

Alternatively, another story I heard was that two large dollar figure donors who are gay told the campaign they would stop donating if he didn't come out in support of gay marriage after the Biden comment. Of course that story comes from Redstate so take it for a grain of hyberbolic salt.

More seriously, this discussion reminds of a debate I had back in 1986 when I was a young history undergraduate challenging my socialist (for real) teaching assistant. I remember positing that if Eugene V. Debs came back from the grave and saw 1986 America, he would be pleased to find his socialist workers state had finally succeed. Social security, medicare/aid, social welfare, unemployment insurance, disability, the ability to freely unionize with legal protections, workplace safety regulations, civil rights protections, and on and on. All these things that were only dreams in Mr Deb's day had become a reality in just two generations.

Of course my socialist TA completely disagreed with me because she was an actual, for real, socialist.

So I guess it all matters what lens you see the world through. I tend to see the world through a historical lens, which very clearly tells me that not only is Obama not a socialist, he's not even a liberal when it comes to economic matters. Not even close. I stand by my statement that when you call Obama a socialist it is a symptom of historical ignorance, which may be willful or actual, but it is ignorance.

Neither a liberal, nor a socialist, nor a capitalist. What exactly is he?

Socially Obama's clearly liberal in a way that Johnson was. Civil rights are important for everyone, but this time we really mean everyone.

But economically? First and foremost he's a politician who wants to get re-elected, and his policies are driven first by that directive. That said, can we call him a Keynesian conservative? By that I mean, he believes in gov't spending as a form of economic stimulus, but he didn't push a massive gov't employment program like FDR. Instead, most of the money went out the door to the private sector, to build stuff, to provide services. Yeah, gov't spent more money, but I don't think it got more powerful.

freeman2 wrote:Bottom line Steve: Obama made the call to get involved in Libya and he made the call to send in the Navy Seals to get Bin Laden. He also had made finding Bin Laden a priority, whereas the Bush Administration did not.

Push away from the bar, you've had enough Kool-Aid.

My recollection was that Obama was willing to make cuts (was even willing to talk about entitlements) but Republicans in the House refused to consider tax increases. This happened during the debt ceiling crisis. Prove me wrong.

Okay, I did. I googled and could not find any reference to a concrete, official proposal from the President, other than his budget which (for the second year in a row) could not even get a DEMOCRAT to vote for it.

So, prove that your recollection is correct.

danivon wrote:I just did a quick survey. Of the 220 threads in this forum, DF started 50. Of those, 15 mention Obama by name or are clearly about the current President simply on the thread title. A further 15 mention Obama by name or by title in the first post.

60% of DF's threads, and more than 1 in 8 of all threads since the relaunch were started by him to have a go at Obama in some way.

Thus demonstrating two things:

1. Your own fixation.
2. That few forums have been started over the last 6 months. Look that up.

I would also note that the President is the most powerful man on the planet and the US is still the only superpower. So, that makes a whole lot more sense than your fixation on gainsaying me.

geojanes wrote:None other than Rush Limbaugh says the President is a leader:

"The POTUS is going to lead a war on traditional marriage."

I was going to say that I agreed with Steve on the whole leadership thing, but Rush convinced me otherwise. Thank goodness he's finally showing leadership on something that's important! (I know, Biden made him do it.)

Leadership?

Did you read his statement? He says it's a State's rights issue.

That means it's not an inherent Constitutional right, so States can do as they please. If that passes as leadership for liberals, okay. However, it sounds remarkably like a conservative (Constitutionally) position.

Watch for more "evolution." Why? Because there will be gay backlash.

rickyp wrote:steve

He's not actually planning to do anything about it. Why should he?

After all, he's only the President.

He's already taken action to NOT defend the DOMA in the courts.

Which, of course, is a violation of his oath of office. Presidents are not kings. They are to enforce the laws, not decide which ones are Constitutional. As a former adjunct law professor, Mr. Obama should know that.

What else could he do as President ? Other than using his office as a bully pulpit.... he's limited isn't he? (He did end Don't Ask Don't tell with executive order....)

Propose legislation? Propose an Amendment? Attend a few gay marriages to publicize the issue and show his support? He could give speeches on it--he's certainly given plenty of speeches on tax "fairness." In fact, he's done so many on that, I could give one for him from memory.,

There is plenty he could do, if he really thought this was a "right" of gays. However, he made plain he does not view it that way.

geojanes wrote:So I guess it all matters what lens you see the world through. I tend to see the world through a historical lens, which very clearly tells me that not only is Obama not a socialist, he's not even a liberal when it comes to economic matters. Not even close. I stand by my statement that when you call Obama a socialist it is a symptom of historical ignorance, which may be willful or actual, but it is ignorance.

Did you not read?

I said he is a Democratic Socialist. The definition suits him to a 't.'

geojanes wrote:Socially Obama's clearly liberal in a way that Johnson was. Civil rights are important for everyone, but this time we really mean everyone.

But economically? First and foremost he's a politician who wants to get re-elected, and his policies are driven first by that directive. That said, can we call him a Keynesian conservative? By that I mean, he believes in gov't spending as a form of economic stimulus, but he didn't push a massive gov't employment program like FDR. Instead, most of the money went out the door to the private sector, to build stuff, to provide services. Yeah, gov't spent more money, but I don't think it got more powerful.

Yes," politician who wants to get re-elected", which essentially supports Steve's position, no?

Keynesian feels right, but I don't see him as a conservative in any sense of the word. He's a Keynesian pragmatist as best, and a Keynesian vote buyer at worst. How about a Keynesian liberal? Isn't he being as liberal as he can be considering the constraints of the other branches of government?

ray

He's a Keynesian pragmatist as best,

Keynes offered an economic theory which successive US Administrations followed from the end of WWII through to Ron Reagan. That is they ran surpluses in good times, and minimal deficits when the economy ran slow. It worked marvellously.
If Obama is such we won't really know until he has a positive economy to work with....
Its real easy to be Keynesian when the economy is in the shitter. Well, maybe it was a little tougher for Obama when he faced obstruction on economic issues from Conservative who wanted to jump right in with the Europeans and commence austerity.....
The key to knowing if someone is Keyynesian is what do they do when the economy is ticking along? (SInce Reagan only CLinton has run surpluses in good times and paid down debt...)

As for the social liberal thing.... I think he can certainly carry that label. With the possible exception of how he has actually handeled issues like marijuana legalization and the continuance of heavy legal tools at use in anti-terror efforts... Does that make him a pragmatic liberal?

Doctor Fate wrote:Thus demonstrating two things:

1. Your own fixation.

Simply backing up my assertions with facts, not just prejudice. You should try it some time. Besides, we both know it's mutual. Gissa kiss.

2. That few forums have been started over the last 6 months. Look that up.

Sure, honey. Since 1 Nov 2011 you started 14 threads, of which 9 mention Obama by name or position in the title or first post (64%). Of the 73 threads started since then, that's still over 12% set up by you to attack Obama.

The rate of new threads has slowed from nearly 15 a month (Jan-Nov 2011) to just over 12 a month, but the share of threads on Obama by you has declined slighly slower.

I would also note that the President is the most powerful man on the planet and the US is still the only superpower. So, that makes a whole lot more sense than your fixation on gainsaying me.

Shyeah right! It's those big brown eyes, isn't it?

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:So I guess it all matters what lens you see the world through. I tend to see the world through a historical lens, which very clearly tells me that not only is Obama not a socialist, he's not even a liberal when it comes to economic matters. Not even close. I stand by my statement that when you call Obama a socialist it is a symptom of historical ignorance, which may be willful or actual, but it is ignorance.

Did you not read?

I said he is a Democratic Socialist. The definition suits him to a 't.'

hmm, seems you are the one who was failing to read properly here. geojanes knows you called Obama a socialist ('Democratic Socialist' would be a kind of socialist, the kind that I and most European socialists are) and he's responding to that.

I'm not sure you are clearing up how you understand the definition of the words you use, though - a democratic socialist seeks to change the ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. I don't see much in the way of nationalisation or public ownership in Obama's policy making. As has been pointed out, the stimulus has been more about tax cuts and subsidy to industry rather than by government doing everything itself.

Anyway, being a socialist (or not, as the reality is) would not stop Obama from being a President who displays leadership. That's what you wanted us to discuss, right?

I think the statement on Single Sex marriage is very brave. After the NC referendum, he must know it's a position that could cost him votes and further energise the right, but he's nailed his colours to the mast.