MSM Confused About Obama

Loading

Dan Balz at the WaPo titled his piece today “Obama’s Ideology Proving Difficult to Pinpoint” which makes me laugh. Only a reporter would say that its hard to pinpoint Obama’s ideology. He is rated the most liberal Senator in the Senate. He ran as a hard-core leftist against Hillary Clinton who he tried to portray as some kind of hawk (laugh). He wants to raise taxes and increase spending. He would meet with Iran and Venezuela without precondition. He wants to retreat from a war we are winning. He desires a stronger nanny state where your taken care of from cradle to grave. He strong support of abortion pushes him farther left then NARAL believing that even babies who survived an abortion should not be protected. He endorsed the gun ban in DC and strongly supports giving Constitutional rights to foreign aliens fighting our country and fighting this war on terror like a law enforcement issue.

He is a radical leftist and its amazing that someone who is so close to being a Marxist is this close to the Presidency. Its equally amazing that reporters can’t pinpoint his ideology with all the evidence in front of them…maybe its his religion that is hypnotizing them:

[flv:buildingareligion.flv 330 260]

More likely its the fact that they can’t wrap their heads around the fact that Obama is now flopping like a fish to move to the center. Victor Davis Hanson spells out the fact that since Obama has been trying to move to the center he is now looking more like Bush then anyone else.

…Obama is not just deflating John McCain’s efforts to hold him to his long liberal record, but also embracing much of the present agenda of an unpopular President Bush on a wide variety of fronts.

Take social issues. Obama is now a gun-rights advocate. Like Bush, he applauded the Supreme Court’s overturning of a Washington, D.C., ordinance banning the possession of handguns.

The senator, also like Bush, supports the death penalty. He recently objected to the court’s rejection of a state law that allowed for the execution of child rapists.

And although Obama is still pro-choice, he now, like the president, thinks “mental distress” should not justify late-term abortion.

In addition, the new Obama would like to continue — and even expand — Bush’s controversial faith-based initiative program of involving churches in government anti-poverty programs.

In fact, Obama is sounding a lot these days like those red-state, small-town conservatives he once caricatured in his infamous comment about Pennsylvanians who “cling” to such hot-button, but extraneous, social causes.

Consider also the campaign trail. Like a Republican in good standing — but unlike the maverick John McCain — Obama has, by his sudden forgoing of public funds, rejected the idea of campaign-finance reform.

In fact, he’s the largest raiser of private cash in American political history, and seems to have dropped opposition to accepting pernicious “special interest money.” Like a Republican, he raises the most among the nation’s wealthiest on Wall Street.

During the primaries, Obama seemed to advocate the dismantling of the North American Free Trade Agreement. But now candidate Obama has little desire to overturn the present Bush trade policies.

On foreign policy and the war against terror, Obama once leaned left in his primary battles against Hillary Clinton. But his latest mutations move him once again closer to George Bush.

For all his prior talk of the loss of civil liberties, a President Obama, like a President Bush, would give telecommunication companies exemption from lawsuits over tapping private phone calls at government request.

Obama wants to continue Bush’s successful multilateral efforts to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and now praises the Bush-inspired six-party talks with North Korea that led to the apparent dismantling of Pyongyang’s nuclear program. Like Bush, he advocated expanding the military after the Clinton-era troop cuts. Obama once advocated lifting the embargo against Cuba — but no longer. Like Bush, he thinks that it is wise to leave it be.

There is suddenly not much difference when it comes to the Middle East, either. Palestinian supporters were dismayed to hear Obama promise that Jerusalem must be Israel’s eternal and undivided capital.

Obama once criticized Bush for his unwillingness to meet directly with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and exaggerating the danger from Iran, which supposedly didn’t “pose any serious threat.” Lately though, he agrees with the president that Iran now in fact is a “grave threat.”

Obama’s most serious about-face is on Iraq. He once promised a rigid and rapid timetable for withdrawing our troops. But given the radical success of Gen. David Petraeus’ surge and change in tactics, Obama is now calling for withdrawals to be based on the conditions on the ground in Iraq.

And the reporters are falling for it obviously.

Only the most dimwitted could actually believe that Obama is now suddenly a centrist.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
20 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Right on, brother!

They aren’t confused. They are covering for him. This is little more than an attempt to confuse people who don’t follow politics…at all.

Marxist?

You moonbats consider public school and non-privatized trash collection to be socialism… It’s hard to take you seriously sometimes.

It’s har to take liberals seriousely any time. Their mentality is follow the bouncing ball at all times. The bouncing ball being liberal fantasies of the day.

It’s hard for the MSN to contort themselves into pretzels as fast Obama can. Sadly, they are left behind.

in the dust.

McCain confused about McCain’s past

Obama’s ideology difficult to pinpoint? Gee, it’s no harder than harpooning a mosquito with a safety pin. You guys are just too hard to please.

Groucho – the only Marxism I believe in!

What, me worry?

HIS FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES ARE FAR LEFTISTS/COMMUNISTS
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/media-excuse-obamas-false-advertising/

What happens when the “fact-checkers” don’t check facts and the “watchdogs” don’t watch? Consider the case of those who claim to be watching politicians for lies and deceptions and pretend to analyze Senator Barack Obama’s new patriotic “Country I Love” television ad, airing in 18 states.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, and Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz have written analyses of the Obama ad. But they are as flawed as the ad itself.
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/media-excuse-obamas-false-advertising/

…AND TERRORISTS
http://theconservativerevolution.com/elections/obamas-terrorist-friends/
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/15/obamas-terrorist-ties/
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/22/which-terrorists-support-which-democratic-presidential-candidate/

…AND ALL MANNER OF ASSORTED ROGUES AND VILLAINS
http://wordpress.com/tag/obamas-friends-scare-me/

If diamonds were half as plentiful in my backyard as these gems, I would have been a millionaire years ago. Heck if I only had one, or two!

“Marxist?

You moonbats consider public school and non-privatized trash collection to be socialism… It’s hard to take you seriously sometimes”

WTF????? are you simple???
Go to the NEA website if you want to know how the democraps view public edumication….
OH… did I mention I teach in a public school district and have first hand knowledge of how these idiots think???
Dang… real life experience beats democrap talking points again…

You still lose… go back to the DU where your immature thoughts make sense……. to you..

Moonbat

I’m sorry FitFit,
typically moonbat is reserverd for you guys on the DU and Daily KOS….
I’m sure you’re familiar with the term….
But you chose to sling it out here… with no rebuttle of facts or substance…

NOBAMA 08

Clean the spittle off your screen and read your previous response. You kinda proved my point for me.

Why are they confused about Obama. Clearly he lies easily to each group he speaks to..to get their vote. He has no principles that he is willing to stick to while trying to get elected. Once elected, he will govern as a socialist fascist. Just read his books. If you don’t get him then, then you are braindead.

FitFit….Moonbats are the clueless of the LEFT. The ones left behind by the left’s failed public school systems around the nation. But thanks for the laugh.

If I were raising children today I would work three jobs or more to keep them out of the public school system. Otherwise they would graduate with an underdeveloped brain like FITFIt.

Here’s a list of articles comparing Obama to presidents all over the politcal spectrum.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/obama-is-new.html

You moonbats consider public school and non-privatized trash collection to be socialism…

Wow… bizarre illustration that he’s not a Marist/socialist, Fit Fit.. Altho while on the education topic, it must be said that Obama supports charter schools (a rather morphed, Jimi Hendrix version of affirmative action), and is against vouchers.. thus denying anyone the chance to attend a private school they would not otherwise be able to afford. He’s notably silent on home schooling. Now why would that be? Perhaps because he doesn’t want to bring it up because the home schoolers won’t like it? As it is, on the home schooler sites I see, they’re filling in the blanks for him… assuming he’s in favor or at least won’t ban it.

He’s most certainly an affirmative action kind of guy. He’s promised to be shuffling more of the taxpayers’ dollars to education… like that’s done whit to improve it for decades. Seems like the more money thrown at it, the more corrupt and beholding to government chosen curriculum it becomes, and the less our kids know when graduated.

INRE his beliefs in general. From Obama himself just days ago, while trying to appease his left base for his central shifting…

“I am someone who is no doubt progressive,” he said, adding that he believes in universal health care and that government has a strong role to play in overseeing financial institutions and cracking down on abuses in bankruptcies and the like.

Let’s see… Progressive sites. Like Common Dreams? The Nation? Center for Labor Renewal?

From Marxmail.org in their FAQs section on Marxism

There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to produce the consumer’s goods which are.

Socialism does not mean taking away the first kind of private property, e.g. your suit of clothes; it does mean taking away the second kind of private property, e.g. your factory for making suits of clothes. It means taking away private property in the means of production from the few so that there will be much more private property in the means of consumption for the many. That part of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property, more suits of clothes, more furniture, more food, more tickets to the movies.

What does imposing profit taxes on the wealthy in order to fund socialist programs but Marxism? What is his intent to make sure no American is “too wealthy”… who achieved their dreams at the “expense” of others… but another way to take from with ability, and redistribute to those of need?

What is the increased government interference (aka “a strong role”) for his perceived “abuse” (windfall profits, salary caps for execs) and lavish govt funding in private enterprise (most especially in energy) but a method to control that industry for the common good?

What is universal healthcare but a pill easier to swallow than socialized medicine?

Altho I’ll give you this… the *real* hardline socialists find him distasteful, as well as all the DNC. He is far too rightwing for them. Places like the World Socialist Web Site say the DNC’s credibility is shattered, and the only way is build a new political movement based on a socialist and internationalist perspective.

Other slighlty less hard core socialist/Marxists think he’s building that movement now, but doesn’t realize it. They believe that once in office, they can push him and a DNC led Congress even further to the left, based on his extreme left primary campaign promises. And ya know, they could be right if those elected nutballs decide to believe that “the American people” want to become the United States Socialist Republic. They are holding all the cards to do it.

Whether any of that comes to pass can only be seen if he is elected. But one thing is for certain. He most certainly has the bulk of the Marxist/socialist support. Now why would that be, if not for their commonality in so many of his policies?

He also has a lot of Wall Street supporters. I’m pretty sure these guys aren’t trying to elect a Marxist.

Wall Street’s generosity toward Obama, in particular, would seem to run counter to its self-interests.

In addition to calling for corporate and capital gains tax hikes, Obama has proposed raising income taxes on those earning more than $250,000.

But Wall Street is often motivated by something more than money – winning.

“In general, these are professional prognosticators,” said Ritsch. “And they may be putting their money on the person they predict will win, not the candidate they hope will win.

Didn’t think we’d read it, did ya!