Obama recently said that if he had been president in the 1980s, he would have been considered a

[Cal33]

Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2013, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

"moderate Republican." And this from his own lips. I saw it on TV news. So is he, himself,
telling us that he is a moderate Republican?

To the Right-Wingers, of course, this is not enough. To them he is still a "Commie." This shows
how far the whole political scene has shifted to the right in this country. Too many of the leaders
of our nation (both in government and in private industry) are half-crazed fanatics -- fanatics for
their own personal profit, and to hell with everybody else. This is why our whole nation is in the
mess and chaos we are in.

This is what happens when we have too many sickos in positions of power. We are being ruled
by sickos. What else can be expected to happen to our nation but go down-hill? And we have
been going down-hill for a long time.

These mad hats have got to be stopped. There isn't much time left before total disaster strikes.
We've got to win both houses of Congress in 2014, and the presidency in 2016. Fence-sitting
Democratic candidates will not bring about change. The best they can do is to maintain the status
quo, and prolong the agony we're in. In short, all they can provide is more of the same.

For REAL CHANGE we need more Progressive Democrats in office -- people like Warren, Sanders,
Grayson............... And we've got to win in 2014 and 2016.

I 'd like to hear the views of those Democrats who believe that a "middle-of-the-road" approach
might be wiser, and certainly safer.

[blm]

1. He's telling us that he is just to the left of President Clinton.

.

[NYC_SKP]

2. !

True!

[leftstreet]

3. You misspelled Reagan

[blm]

4. No...I have it right...Clinton - Best Republican president since Eisenhower.

.

[Cal33]

6. Eisenhower has also been called a "Commie" by Right-Wing crazies.

[Cal33]

7. I think Clinton is more correct. Reagan was so far to the right that he is totally out of

the picture.

[Cal33]

5. Which isn't saying much. If you consider how much of the time he has yielded to the outrageous

demands of the Republicans -- oftentimes already yielding ground before they've even begun
their first bargaining session, and yielding still more ground during the bargaining, so that by
the end, he had given away 3/4ths of what he wanted for the Democrats. I remember once
Boehner boasting that he had gotten 95% of what he had wanted from Obama.

The bargaining process is supposed to be a two-way street. With Obama it rarely is. So, if
anything, he's to the right of Clinton.

[ThirdWayCowplop]

13. He negotiates from a position of weakness every time almost like it was planned from the get go

Some days I honestly believe that the party no longer gives a shit about the base knowing full well that just enough people will vote for the lessor of the 2 evils to keep the lunatic Pub from being elected.

One of these days I think it is going to backfire big time but the party will just blame the base like they usually do and find more conservative candidate’s to support while ignoring the more liberal and progressive candidate’s.

Once the GOP can find more likable candidates, basically a lunatic who can keep his/her shit together and not expose themselves as a loon, the GOP will win more elections because then both major parties will be running candidate’s that will appeal to the so called moderates and independents and when that happens the Pub wins every time. Right now the party does not offer a clear choice between the Democrat on the ticket and the Republican on the ticket in many races and as long as that trend continues the Democratic Party will continue to lose races it could win, nothing turns off voters more than 2 candidates who are basically the same except for the party letter after their name.

People need a reason to want to vote and wait on line for hours and when both candidates are basically the same in most areas of policy, people ask themselves why bother when the old boss will be the same as the new boss. That is the typical voter today not the informed voters but the uninformed who are totally clueless how they are really being screwed over and are easily influenced by corporate propaganda.

Money, ignorance, propaganda and fan boys and girls of both parties keeps real change from happening.

[Cal33]

16. Yes, he does negotiate from a position of weakness. Whether planned or not, it doesn't

do our nation any good.

Sometimes Obama seems to be so fixated on the idea of "bipartisanship" that it has become
an obsession with him. And when an idea has become an obsession, emotion takes over, and
all rational thinking, reasoning and evaluation based on facts go out the window -- no matter
how intelligent the individual is. He is hooked.

Bipartisanship takes two to tango. The fact that the Right-Wingers don't want to tango no
longer makes any difference to Obama. Furthermore, they are openly insulting him and openly
showing that they are doing their best to destroy him and the Democratic Party. And this makes
no difference to Obama either. He still wants bipartisanship. It's all in his head.

[KoKo]

8. It's all very depressing that it's come down to this, though. n/t

[Scuba]

9. ...

(Thanks to DUer RD for this image)

[davidpdx]

10. When was the video from?

This was posted in Dec 2012. When it actual happened I don't know. It looks like about a year ago. Certainly not recent:

This confirms it was December 14th:

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

I tend to agree with him he IS a moderate, given how far the Republicans have moved right.

[Cal33]

15. I have the impression that it was about a month or so ago, when I saw it on TV. It's possible

that it could have been a replay by the newsman to emphasize some point. I'm guessing.

[cali]

11. Here's what he said and the context in which he said it

President Obama said his economic policies are "so mainstream" he'd be considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s.


In a Thursday interview with a Miami-based local television station, Obama said he thinks few people believe he wants to impose socialism on the country.

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.

"I mean, what I believe in is a tax system that is fair," he continued. "I don't think government can solve every problem. I think that we should make sure that we're helping young people go to school. We should make sure that our government is building good roads and bridges and hospitals and airports so that we have a good infrastructure.

"I do believe that it makes sense that everyone in America, as rich as this country is, shouldn't go bankrupt because someone gets sick, so the things I believe in are essentially the same things your viewers believe in," Obama said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s#ixzz2eOO1oklm

[davidpdx]

12. Good catch

Also see the video above. It was 10 months ago, not recently as the OP stated.

[cali]

14. I think when you say so-and-so said this, you have an obligation

to use the actual quote and that context in which it was spoken.

that simple.

[Cal33]

17. I don't think Eisenhower would have been against the measures above advocated by Obama. In

fact, he was the one who warned our nation to beware the "Military/Industrial Complex." He
sounded more Democratic than Republican there. Not many Democratic politicians today
would have the courage to say what Eisenhower did.