Obama is actually a Rockefeller Republican

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
This is going to anger a lot of people, I mean a lot. From those on the Left, Right, and Center, but just because something will anger people does not mean it should be kept away. Seeing as how you survived reading the title without racing to post an immediate reply telling me I am absolutely insane I think we are ready to move forward.

A little history is in order to fully understand how we got to this point. It really began in 1985 with the founding of the Democratic Leadership Council after the horrible election loss suffered by Mondale to President Reagan. The intention of the DLC was to move the Democratic Party away from the Left position it had held since Roosevelt. While it did not oppose the New Left movement overall many positions were to be torn out of the party just as basically the entire Old Left positions were.

The New Left is a term used to describe the Liberal movement in America that began during the late 60s. These Liberals rallied behind the anti-war candidates like Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, and even Robert Kennedy. They were not as left-wing economically as the Old Left was (Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson) but were far more socially progressive. This movement had angered Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the man whom modern day Neoconservatives call their founding father, who created the Coalition for a Democratic Majority. Its aim was for the establishment of the New Deal Coalition which collapsed in 1968 after seeing the results of two failed elections (’68 and ’72).

These people in the DLC became known as “New Democrats” for their very conservative economic message coupled with a more culturally liberal attitude. In Congress the first of these freshman Democrats to join the Committee on Party Effectiveness (House version of DLC) were William Gray, Tim Wirth, Al Gore, Richard Gerphardt, and Gillis Long. They, and the others they influenced, would go on to become the establishment in the party 10 years later.

When the DLC began it had only 43 elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, these men wanted to make a Southern Democrat win the party nomination in 1988. This effort failed so in 1989 they turned towards influencing public discussion so Marshall founded the Progressive Policy Institute which would set out blue prints for the DLC.

Now this council still did not have control over the party even 6 years later but in 1992 a man from Arkansas would rise as their most prominent speaker; Bill Clinton. With him the DLC would push for welfare reform (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), expansion of Earned Income Tax Credit, AmeriCorps, support expanding health care through tax credits and opposed single-payer, support for school vouchers, No Child Left Behind, and the expansion of Free Trade (NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO). The DLC is also a proponent of interventionism abroad with their support of invading Iraq and Afghanistan, Marshall even co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for a New American Century endorsing the actions.

So where did these folks come from? What inspired them to transform the Democratic Party? That also takes a look at history during the defining era of the 1960s. From 1936 to 1960 the Centrist wing of the Republican Party dominated party politics; Landon, Willkie, Dewey, Eisenhower, and Nixon. But in 1964 the grassroots activism of conservative members propelled Senator Barry Goldwater to the nomination, defeating the expected nominee Nelson Rockefeller.

See, the Rockefeller type centrist Republicans lost the election but not the war… yet. In 1968 Nixon ran a much more conservative campaign while still holding onto the centrists, he kept them even in 1972. By 1976 they were still in the party but were the primary was very close between centrist Ford and conservative Reagan. And by 1980 Reagan defeated their candidate, George H.W. Bush. Throughout the 1970s the party began to lose its centrist wing as they were angered with Nixon’s Southern Strategy of virtually pinning whites against blacks in the South.

Then in 1980 when the Reagan wing took hold of the party and brought on board many Southern Democrats they abandoned the party en masse. By 1985 influencing Democrats with enormous amounts of wealth which the Rockefeller ‘Centrist’ Republicans always had they were able to create the DLC. This organization received heavy funding which the Democratic Party had not ever been able to do for years. In effect, the centrist Republicans bought up much of the Democratic Party.

By 1992 their power was strong enough to propel Clinton, one of their own, into the White House. He was the most conservative Democratic President, economically, since perhaps Grover Cleveland in the 19th century. Al Gore, then vice President, made his run for the White House in 2000 as another ‘New Democrat’. In 2004 another ‘New Democrat’ ran for President and won party nomination; John Kerry. However in 2008 Barack Obama was the first Democratic nominee not to be a ‘New Democrat’ since 1992 and was elected as a Liberal… that did not last long.

March 10, 2009


President Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats on Tuesday afternoon, he offered a statement of solidarity.

“I am a New Democrat,” he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.


What does this mean? Well what it means in general is that Nelson Rockefeller may have lost the 1964 nomination but he not only won the nomination in 1992, he won the general election. These Democrats today; Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama and almost all but a few Democrats currently in the US legislature are New Democrats in one way or another.

If you do not believe me just take a few looks at the Health Care Law.

Source


Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.


Another Source. And a third Source.

Not to mention Obama supported only half of the $2 trillion that his advisor Christina Romer said was necessary for an adequate stimulus. Obama voted in favor of the continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts through 2012 back in December so long as he got a few items he wanted. He did not stop Wall Street executives from leaving with golden parachutes or even try to limit the size of their bonuses. When Liberal economists called for the nationalization of particular large banks he refused. Now just take a look at the debt deals.

Source


The Obama administration, in seeking $4 trillion in spending cuts in a debt limit deal, has put major changes to Social Security and Medicare on the table if Republicans agree to increased tax revenues.

The offer caters to both sides in the debt limit negotiations and according to the Washington Post, President Obama will urge congressional leaders on Thursday to seize the opportunity to act. The compromise, however, still puts both Republicans and Democrats in tough spots.


Obama has also continued the New Democrats and Neoconservative tradition of ‘intervention, war, bomb’ by slowly removing troops from Iraq, expanding the war in Afghanistan, using drones in Pakistan and Syria, and intervening militarily in Libya. That does not sound like a very Liberal thing to do. This does not even include his exempting military spending from spending cuts as the cost of our empire grows larger and larger every year.

He ran roughshod over the constitution with the continuation of the USA Patriot Act, intervention in Libya without Congressional approval, expansion of the TSA, and pushing for the ability to assassinate people (which he got).

Then we add in supporting cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and other social welfare programs, the continuation of Bush tax cuts, continuation and expansion of foreign intervention, warrantless wiretapping, corporate health care reform, and I could go on and on. Obama is not a Socialist; do not make me fall over laughing. If Obama is a Socialist so was every President from Hoover to Ford. He is not even a Liberal; Obama is just a more left-leaning version of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Any Democrat who would voluntarily support cuts to the big three is not a real Democrat, simple as that.

Under his presidency he has failed on every Liberal initiative and has allowed the Tea Party to right the agenda when they only control the House of Representatives. I mean the discussion today is so far to the right that it is almost impossible to not see unless there is something wrong with you. How Liberals can possibly be happy with him is beyond me. Obama is definitely not a Liberal and that definitely rules out being a Socialist.

What kind of political discourse do we have in this country when an Eisenhower type of politician is considered far-left? That is the type of stuff the John Birch Society said. Is the mainstream right in America now the same as the John Birch Society was in the 1950s? Is that really what we are talking about here? By this point if we brought Reagan back he would probably be considered a centrist in the GOP nomination for 2012.

Now I know this thread is going to be taken the wrong way, with people slamming me for turning into some Liberal now. Well good luck to you. I am not a Liberal, rather a Moderate, but am not the type of person who wants to be an ideologue as I previously was as it is much better to be able to look upon our current political discourse and see what is going on. Obama is a Rockefeller Republican, Republicans are the John Birch Society, and the Democrats are split between being Rockefeller Republicans and the ‘far-left’ is just like the centrist Democrats of the 1980s.
edit on 7/19/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Liberal/Progressive. Same thing.

Sure not a Conservative.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Liberal/Progressive. Same thing.

Sure not a Conservative.


For fairness' sake, neither are most conservatives.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
And George W. Bush was more of a Kennedy, Truman, or FDR Democrat than obama could ever dream of being.

Clearly, obama has left the democrat label behind and is clearly identified with (the left side of) socialism.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


It's fun to make believe.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
And George W. Bush was more of a Kennedy, Truman, or FDR Democrat than obama could ever dream of being.


I will believe you in the event adequate proof is provided. Besides the issues of interventionism abroad Bush has almost nothing in common with any of these Democrats. Perhaps if you had actually studied up on American political history, forget revisionist history, and then it would be obvious. Centurion you are a smart man but on this you showed sometimes facts evade you.


Clearly, obama has left the democrat label behind and is clearly identified with (the left side of) socialism.


I am going to guess you either; A. Did not read my OP, or B. You read it but dismissed it. In either case it shows a complete lack of respect towards my work.
edit on 7/19/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Well written and concise. The Liberal agenda, as so many in the MSM like to call it, is historically rather centrist itself in its origins and application. While the new Democrats did define themselves as anti-war during the 60's, there has been a gradual move toward the center since its inception. While we may never have a truly "center" thinking party in this country, it is ominous to see that both parties have seemingly crossed the lines in efforts to garner votes.
Personally, I have never viewed Obama as a Liberal but rather an "answer' to the public outcry of the Bush administration. While his actions at first seem liberal, there is an underlying force keeping him in line with a middle of the road ideology.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
He supports and actively pursues war on all fronts. He supports and actively supports corporate welfare and fraud. His administration has done nothing successful at all. Everything has been a dream, or a hoax. Health insurance is a fraud and scandal. It is corporate welfare. It is forcing every American to purchase insurance from the corporations they demonized all along.

What the hell. Seriously.

I would say Bush was worse, yes. As he started a lot of problems, but Obama is no better. He doesn't change a thing, he literally pushes it forward even more, including war. It's always been a charade. The entire administration is just a shell game, trying to convince people he is our savior, using the "Bush was worse" strategy. Sorry, I can't fix anything, because Bush was worse and the big bad republicans won't let me go to recess.

Apparently being impotent and indecisive isn't a factor in this mess. Nope. "I'm president of the United States, and even though I can make a lot of decisions, and put my administration to action, I choose not to because I'd rather blame all the republicans for all my indecisiveness, and have all the media convince the public."
edit on 19-7-2011 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I have often mentioned to my friends, many of who voted for Obama and now regret it, that Obama is the Republican Manchurian Candidate.

After the failure of the past two and a half years, and by the end of his term, The DNC will not be elected to power for quite some time, if ever again.

They’re using the two party power system to further divide us.

The few Tea Party rally’s I have attended, were attended by Democrats, Republicans and most importantly, Independents. All were peaceful, but there was one common cause.

The over extension of Government.

They truly want us to be become dependent upon them. Once that happens, we become the sheeple.

But they had best beware, fore underneath that mellow exterior, lies the skin of a wolf.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I read a few months ago that obama was like a 90's republican. it never ceases to amaze me how people don't think for themselves, and just swallow whatever rush is selling that day

truth be told, if obama would toe the conservative company line, rush would kill to have him as a candidate

kill



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir

I am going to guess you either; A. Did not read my OP, or B. You read it but dismissed it. In either case it shows a complete lack of respect towards my work.
edit on 7/19/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)


Normally, I both read AND highly respect your work.


However, I must admit having a hard time getting past even the title of this one.

I have heard Bush called a Kennedy democrat - by Republicans - more than once for being strong on defense, but still a free spender. But until now, I've never seen obama called a Rockefeller - or any other kind of Republican. The idea is simply ludicrous. Sorry, but that's how I see this one.
edit on 7/19/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Obama Does Want to Cut Medicare and Social Security Benefits


Obama put cuts to these programs on the table because he wants to sign a package with cuts to these programs. His stated goal is a large deficit reduction package that is mostly spend cuts with very few tax increases. The only way he can get that without making major cuts to the Pentagon is by cutting the social safety net. If Obama actually wanted an equally large deficit reductions package that was mostly tax increases, he could easily already gotten that by vetoing any extension of the Bush tax cuts. He only wants to reduce the deficit if it is mostly through cuts.

The truly historic importance of what is happen right now can’t be repeated enough. It is a Democratic President who is the driving force now behind cutting Medicare and Social Security. It is a Democratic President who feels that deficit reduction during a recession and keeping tax rates near historic laws are both much more important policy goals than protecting Social Security and Medicare Benefits.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
Obama Does Want to Cut Medicare and Social Security Benefits


Obama put cuts to these programs on the table because he wants to sign a package with cuts to these programs. His stated goal is a large deficit reduction package that is mostly spend cuts with very few tax increases. The only way he can get that without making major cuts to the Pentagon is by cutting the social safety net. If Obama actually wanted an equally large deficit reductions package that was mostly tax increases, he could easily already gotten that by vetoing any extension of the Bush tax cuts. He only wants to reduce the deficit if it is mostly through cuts.

The truly historic importance of what is happen right now can’t be repeated enough. It is a Democratic President who is the driving force now behind cutting Medicare and Social Security. It is a Democratic President who feels that deficit reduction during a recession and keeping tax rates near historic laws are both much more important policy goals than protecting Social Security and Medicare Benefits.


But the cynical part of me says that obama is simply saying all those things now because he realizes the upcoming election will be tough to win under the current economic circumstances. He is saying these things so that he can APPEAR to be the kind of centrist democrat Clinton was ... even though that's the last thing obama really is. Short of being a closet Republican, of course.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 

This is a well done worthwhile thread, and you put your heart and real work into it. I hope it doesn't slip away too quick, that'd be a travesty. I have, in the heat of the moment on impulse, compared our Supreme Leader to that group of well assimilated Russians who got found out. Ahem. Mostly, I was feeling frustrated about his mysterious past. But he is sooooooo far from a Socialist type, Oh my gawd. He is truly a Rockefeller Republican, everything he does, is what George Bushes would'v. He is a Globalist, an Elitest, and him and Hillary Clinton both went to meetings with the Bilderbergs, most likely to recieve instruction. I would not be surprised if one day it would come out, his attendance at Bohemian Grove. He ran a vague campaign of Hope And Change, when people were desperately frustrated.

But I am convinced, that, because of the internet, and all these scandals, and such as Anonymous and wickileaks, people are more awake than before, NO MATTER how they FEEL.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I think you are on the right track in this, but I also think Obama is something quite new on the national political stage, born from something quite old.

For twenty years he sat in the pews of and supported fully the teachings of Reverend Wright and his ilk, including Louis Farrakhan, a welcome guest at that church. Knowing full well Obama is not dumb it stands to reason he is lying about him not being aware of Wrights beliefs.

I first discovered Wrights pseudo-Christian church a couple of years before I'd ever heard of Obama. I often chastise myself for not getting a screen shot of the letter that originally was the home page of their website. The letter laid out the qualifications for being a member of Reverend Wrights group. It included a statement that your first loyalty must be to Africa, not the United States. Since Farrakhan is and has been a welcome guest often, the implication was to be a member you must be anti-American. Oddly enough the letter had nothing to do with Christianity.

To me this starts to build a picture of a man who hates the country he leads. Who hates the Constitution for limiting his powers to do as he wishes and who hates the fact he cannot act as a Dictator because of the Separation of Powers.

One thing that is new about this new political species if you will is that Obama is the first to so openly defy the Constitution. His recent statement about how illiterate the voters are and the megalomaniacal claim we don't need to understand what is going on as they will do our thinking for us, should scream to us how his mind works.

So far we have -
His loyalty is not to the United States.
He thinks anyone who does not agree with him is to illiterate to know anything.
He does not care about, nor does he like the Constitution.

Add to that his mindset that history has no meaning in it's lessons, as he personally was not in charge so of course things went wrong (true Progressive mindset).

Then add that when his decisions don't work out, his mind does not say to him you messed up, it says to him it did not work because somebody else messed it up.

Then we find he is for a State controlled media and State censorship of our information sources. He has been for the most part covert in this, but it is clear his operatives are following his marching orders.

Ever noticed how he plays down his relationship with Bill Ayers out of shame for the association with him? Bill Ayers, a cancer on society from my day, hates the US and wants to topple the government and eliminate the Constitution. Ayers also infiltrated a group, the Peace Movement, by pretending to be a part when in fact he was no such thing. Obama's infiltration of the Democrats is very similar and I think for good reason.

If he was a student of Ayers and I think he was, his goal is to topple the US and rebuild it in a manner similar to that used by Hitler. Using Hitler in this context may seem wrong on the surface, but is it?

I think this man Obama thought he could go further than he was able to get away with right up front. As evidence I offer the network of Ayers clones who have populated the universities since my time. He was barely elected and they had our children chanting Obama in the classrooms. They started to jump the gun, showing us their hand in the process.

I also noted he was unable to pass even a budget, even though for two years he had complete control. Why is that? I think it is because many Democrats have recognized he is something new and dangerous which is a good thing for us. Had he had their support he could have gone a lot further than he already has gone.

Problem here is that since he is something new, or I should say something old and bad rearing it's head again, he is able to use the power of the Democratic Party and their Partisan blindness. The end goal of this bunch is complete control and not through a Democratic government. They envision a worldwide Nanny State where even the most routine of decisions is made for us by them. Now where have we heard this before in history?

You are right in pointing out that these Progressives are not in any way Liberals. They have taken over their Party however; that much is clear.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I agree, and disagree with most of whats been said here. I would say Bush did a decent job with what he could do.

9/11 ( no i do not think it was a false flag, or a CIA ops.) was a test for any leader, liberal or conservative. Perhaps bush moved to Iraq too quickly, perhaps not. that's for another thread. I do not view the Patriot act under bush to have been a severe breach in rights. I had nothing to hide, so I was not worried. because in the times we live in, it could be the government or your neighbor spying on you. if you all remember, a lot of information was gleaned.
When Obama's "Big Sis" started using the Patriot act to legally monitor veterans ( or Right-Wing Extremists, as she put it) when they returned home, is when I became worried.

I did not agree with TARP, because as we found out later, those troubled institutions were fudging the numbers. And allowing terrible mortgage deals, yes because bush deregulated, but I don't think he could foresee just how crazy wall street would go with it. and Poulson was running the show and not necessarily reporting everything he should have to Bush.

Obama is many things, including a petulant man-child. and when the OP says he's a Rockefeller Republican, I agree because I don't like the Rockefeller's one bit.

Obama has done nothing great, and I say that with a hint of sadness. because while I don't agree with the democratic ideology, I have always hoped that each president would be good, if not great.

edit on 19-7-2011 by Kingbreaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by simone50m
reply to post by Misoir
 

This is a well done worthwhile thread, and you put your heart and real work into it. I hope it doesn't slip away too quick, that'd be a travesty. I have, in the heat of the moment on impulse, compared our Supreme Leader to that group of well assimilated Russians who got found out. Ahem. Mostly, I was feeling frustrated about his mysterious past. But he is sooooooo far from a Socialist type, Oh my gawd. He is truly a Rockefeller Republican, everything he does, is what George Bushes would'v. He is a Globalist, an Elitest, and him and Hillary Clinton both went to meetings with the Bilderbergs, most likely to recieve instruction. I would not be surprised if one day it would come out, his attendance at Bohemian Grove. He ran a vague campaign of Hope And Change, when people were desperately frustrated.


But wouldn't all that make obama more of a NWO puppet - sort of a "manchurian candidate" - than it would any sort of Republican (by definition)?



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I bet if Bush could of had third term, he would have done basically the same stuff as Obama.

Here is what Bush would do:
Continue war in Iraq
Continue war in Afghanistan
Continue bombing Pakistan
Reappoint Bernanke as chairman of the Fed Reserve (He was Bush's former economic adviser btw)
Keep guantanamo bay open
Extend the patriot act
He'd probably bail out the banks too

What Obama has done (in direct contradiction to many of his campaign promises)
Continue war in Iraq
Continue war in Afghanistan
Continue bombing Pakistan
Reappoint Bernanke as chairman of the Fed Reserve
Keep guantanamo bay open
Extend the patriot act
Bank bail out

Oh, and guess what? If you dont like those things, that's too bad, because you don't have a choice. You might think you do when your voting, but they all end up doing the same thing in the end. What a tragic comedy.
edit on 19-7-2011 by CREAM because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-7-2011 by CREAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


This answer is very short and requires only one word: Yes.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by centurion1211
 


This answer is very short and requires only one word: Yes.


Ok.

Then it appears we agree after all.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum