http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon.aspx#page1 Barack Obama: The Democratsâ Richard Nixon? By BRUCE BARTLETT, The Fiscal Times July 22, 2011 "There is no question that Barack Obama is one of our most enigmatic presidents. Despite having published two volumes of memoirs before being elected president, we really donât know that much about what makes him tick. The ongoing debate over the deficit and the debt limit is clarifying what I think he is: a Democratic Richard Nixon. To explain what I mean, I first have to tell some history. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was a transformative president, partly because of his policies but mainly because he presided over the two most disruptive events of the 20th century: the Great Depression and World War II. By the time Dwight Eisenhower took office, people craved stability and he was determined to give it to them. This angered his fellow Republicans, who wanted nothing more than to repeal Rooseveltâs New Deal, root and branch. And with control of both the House and Senate in 1953 and 1954, he could have undone a lot of it if he wanted to. But Eisenhower not only refused to repeal the New Deal, he wouldnât even let Republicans in Congress cut taxes even though the high World War II and Korean War rates were in effect. He thought a balanced budget should take priority. Eisenhower also helped to destroy right wing hero Joe McCarthy and worked closely with liberals on civil rights. Eisenhowerâs effective liberalism was deeply frustrating to conservatives. Robert Welch of the John Birch Society even accused him of being a communist. But after Republicans lost control of Congress in 1954, he was the only game in town for them. By 1964, conservatives got control of the GOPâs nominating process and put forward one of their own, Barry Goldwater, to complete the unfinished work of repealing the New Deal that Eisenhower refused to do. But he lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson, who quickly capitalized on his victory by doubling down on the New Deal with the Great Society. Although Johnson was done in by Vietnam, his domestic liberalism was as popular in 1968 as the New Deal had been in 1952. Nevertheless, conservatives deluded themselves that Nixon would repeal the Great Society. But just as Eisenhower cemented the New Deal in place, Nixon accepted the legitimacy of the Great Society. His goal was to make it work efficiently and shave off the rough edges. Nixon even expanded the welfare state by expanding its regulatory reach through the Environmental Protection Agency and other new government agencies. Conservatives were infuriated by Nixonâs betrayal, but lacking control of Congress they were stuck with him just as they had been with Eisenhower. Not very many were upset when Watergate pushed Nixon out of office. Conservatives finally got the president they had always hoped for when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. But by then, key New Deal/Great Society programs like Social Security and Medicare were so deeply embedded in government and society that he never lifted a finger to dismantle them. Reagan even raised taxes 11 times to keep them funded. Liberals initially viewed Bill Clinton the same way conservatives viewed Eisenhower â as a liberator who would reverse the awful policies of his two predecessors. But almost immediately, Clinton decided that deficit reduction would be the first order of business in his administration. His promised middle class tax cut and economic stimulus were abandoned. By 1995, Clinton was working with Republicans to dismantle welfare. In 1997, he supported a cut in the capital gains tax. As the benefits of his 1993 deficit reduction package took effect, budget deficits disappeared and we had the first significant surpluses in memory. Yet Clinton steadfastly refused to spend any of the flood of revenues coming into the Treasury, hording them like a latter day Midas. In the end, his administration was even more conservative than Eisenhowerâs on fiscal policy. And just as pent-up liberal aspirations exploded in the 1960s with spending for every pet project green lighted, so too the fiscal conservatism of the Clinton years led to an explosion of tax cuts under George W. Bush, who supported every one that came down the pike. The result was the same as it was with Johnson: massive federal deficits and a tanking economy. Thus Obama took office under roughly the same political and economic circumstances that Nixon did in 1968 except in a mirror opposite way. Instead of being forced to manage a slew of new liberal spending programs, as Nixon did, Obama had to cope with a revenue structure that had been decimated by Republicans. Liberals hoped that Obama would overturn conservative policies and launch a new era of government activism. Although Republicans routinely accuse him of being a socialist, an honest examination of his presidency must conclude that he has in fact been moderately conservative to exactly the same degree that Nixon was moderately liberal. Here are a few examples of Obama's effective conservatism: His stimulus bill was half the size that his advisers thought necessary; He continued Bushâs war and national security policies without change and even retained Bushâs defense secretary; He put forward a health plan almost identical to those that had been supported by Republicans such as Mitt Romney in the recent past, pointedly rejecting the single-payer option favored by liberals; He caved to conservative demands that the Bush tax cuts be extended without getting any quid pro quo whatsoever; And in the past few weeks he has supported deficit reductions that go far beyond those offered by Republicans. Further evidence can be found in the writings of outspoken liberals such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has condemned Obamaâs conservatism ever since he took office. Conservatives will, of course, scoff at the idea of Obama being any sort of conservative, just as liberals scoffed at Nixon being any kind of liberal. But with the benefit of historical hindsight, itâs now obvious that Nixon was indeed a moderate liberal in practice. And with the passage of time, itâs increasingly obvious that Clinton was essentially an Eisenhower Republican. It may take 20 years before Obamaâs basic conservatism is widely accepted as well, but itâs a fact."
You can call Obama, "Ronald Reagan" if it makes you feel better, the bottom line is his commie ass is going to be gone a year and a half from now, and in the history books there will be a "D" beside his name which will be followed by a big "F" for what a complete and utter failure he was
Lately there seems to be some hope but I have some doubts. Obama doesn't hesitate to play one half of the country against the other half. Given that complete lack of morality anything could happen.
I would say it cant be a good sign for Dems that in the last month or so you have been seeing articles like the one Ricter posted all over the place which are written by liberals, who have now had to resort to saying the reason Obama has completely failed is because he didnt go far enough left. I wouldnt put it past his core of voters (think guys like ak47) to go out in droves and support him, even though he was a complete failure. Liberals have made a nice transition from blaming Bush to realising that Obama is a complete failure, basically the only bumps he has ever had in the polls were after healthcare, and after bin laden, so what is Obama going to do to bump his poll numbers before next election day? I dont see him getting anything significant accomplished between now and then, and with bernanke coming out with QE3, gas prices should go up, also there is no mre stimulus money left and i see unemployment going up as well.
Obama's base is the far-left. Running for the center is just going to alienate them. Clinton only had to move a few steps to the right. Obama has to travel light-years to the right to reach a perception that he is a centrist. He needs a Dick Morris type to point that out. Seems like his advisors are afraid to tell him the truth. In the final analysis the community organizer isn't much of a politician. What worked in Chicago doesn't scale up. Machine politics doesn't really work when you are dealing with 300 million people.
Thats why i have made up my mind today, when i hear people on the left say that Obama is a republican, i am just going to agree with them, that way when he makes a dash for center, these people are going to be even more pissed, and if he goes even further left then hes really screwed. They can call himwhatever they want to provided we dont have to put up with him for another term.
How is Obama farther to the left of Clinton when 1 Clinton raised taxes and Obama cut them with his stimulus and extended the bush tax cuts 2.Clinton fought to the end for single payer heath care and Obama took the health plan of the republican congress and Mitt Romney 3.Clinton stayed out of major wars and cut defense spending while Obama prolongs major wars and increased defense spending 4.Clinton was not willing to make major cuts in SS, medicare,education while Obama is willing to make major cuts in those programs to make a deal with republicans 5.Clinton banned assault rifles while Obama has made no attempts at gun control 6.Obamas major polices are a copy of his republican predecessor or other republican positions while Clinton was a complete opposite of Bush and Reagan
1. Obama also responsible for one of the largest tax increases in history under Obama care. 2. Clinton never got any healthcare bill through so its so what he fought for is a moot point, Obama saddled us with a brand new entitlement while we were already broke with zero republican support. Just because Romney supported a left wing entitlement while he was governor of a far left state does not make it a right wing idea, incase you didnt notice romney is one of those chameleon shithead politicians who will do/say whatever he thinks is politically expedient, and really has no set of principles that he sticks to 100% 3. Dems have gotten us into just as many wars as republicans over the years, so war is not a one sided thing, infact Obama recently got us into 2 new ones. 4. Lets see it on paper, so far all him and the dems have done is demonise republicans for trying to reign those programs in 5. See operation Fast and Furious, Obama is simply going about it in a shady behind the scenes way, and trying to backdoor it. (should come as no surprise given the liberal love affair with the backdoor) 6. have already went over all this. 7. Dodd-Frank 8. Brand new useless beaurecracy called the consumer protection agency 9. Stiffed GM bondholders for a handout to the unions, nationalised GM 10. Comes from a church that hates America, his wife has also said she was proud of america for the first time in her life when Obama was elected. 11. Went on world apology tour telling everyone how terrible america is. 12. Massive stimulus which was just a give away to useless government programs, like the program which cost a million dollars to teach africans to wash their penis. 13. Record new deficits, of which Obama is atleast half to blame for. 14. Cap and Trade. 15. Constant demonising of people who make over 250k, constantly telling people they have "made enough already" 16. Department of justice which is focused more on getting minorities out of laws, then actually enforcing the laws 17. Trying to implement a punitive tax on foods which are bad for you. 18. tried at first to prosecute KSM in regular court rather than military tribunals, too much back lash. 19. constantly demonising wallstreet 20. Permanent unemployment benefits/foodstamps (where as clinton worked with republicans to reform/cut welfare) 21. Using the EPA to constantly harass businesses. 22. demonising oil companies 23. administration with the least private sector experience of any administration in history. All of these are big time left wing ideas, the only real thing you have which he has done was a few tax cuts, most of which republicans forced on him. Also none of these even gets into all of the radicals that Obama has associated him self with, and all of the radicals which Obama put into his administration who are all devout marxists.
Ther Bartlett article quoted in the OP is largely fantasy. Nixon never campaigned on ending the Great Society, and no one seriously expected him to try. For one thing, democrats controlled congress, for another, vietnam was the total focus. It wasn;t that conservatives weren;t unhappy to see him go, it was that there were not that many conservatives in congress and none in the media to protect him. He was lynched by a mob of dirtbags at the Washington Post, who had invented a scandal and then played on it endlessly in partnership with democrats in congress to finally get the guy they had hated for decades. As for clinton, the idea he was focused on balancing the budget is even more ludicrous. He raised taxes to fund bigger government, and tried desperately to impose his own brand of socialized medicine, hillarycare. The Gingrich "Contract With America" Congress was elected in '04 and put a stop to his spending and forced welfare reform on an unwilling Clinton. The rest of his 8 years were concerned with various scandals and corruption. Bartlett is true to Clinton and Obama in one respect however. he didn't let the facts get in the way of a good story.