How can the dems just be blowwing another election?

[RY62]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RY62

Yeah, we did just talk about this. And you're still not getting it.

At this time, we can only "hope" that Obama is not far left any more than Hillary is far left. There's no history to say for sure where he is. For all I know, he could be left of Pelosi. We have him left in the primary and center in the GE. Maybe he's really left. Maybe he's really centrist. Maybe both perceptions are false and he'll be something as yet unknown.

I'm sure the Republicans would have said the exact same thing about Senator Clinton and some of the things they'd say would probably be true. At least we know her long time positions well enough to decide for ourselves.

So you're saying that you don't know what his positions are in one breath, and then in the next you are declaring him on the 'far left' of American politics. See the problem?

No, I don't see the problem. My declaration was based on his voting record and his positions during the primary, which gave the impression that he was to the far left of American politics. His positions now give the impression that he may be more centrist.

On moderate or bipartisan message boards his supporters are saying that he was always centrist but that he had to pander to the left in the primaries. Pop in on a lefty sight like Democratic Underground and you'll see his supporters saying that he was and is still far left and that he's just pandering to the center now. Fact is, nobody seems to know for sure.

Are you absolutely certain you know what his true position is?

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Lemme sum up the OP's position-

He somewhat realizes that the current batch of Repubs and their overpaid talking head sycophants are lying, cheating, stealing charlatans and conmen of the worst sort, yet somehow finds a way to believe them when they label the opposition as "Left" "Leftist" "eco-kooks" and "extremists"... We have extreme right-wingers masquerading as "centrists", raving about "leftists" (anybody who's not them) when there really is no "Left" in American politics. Real Leftists would label Obama as as a milquetoast apologist for Capitalism...
Basically, the OP and others like him are ready for 4 more years of the same reach-around because he's been conditioned to like it, and to trust the ravings coming out of his radio... Pavlov would be proud.

Most of the discussion these days is about American politics. When we declare our positions (left, right, or center) it is in relation to American politics.

From your posts, I would say that you are extreme left, that you see the DLC as the Republican wing of the Democrat party and its members are extreme right-wingers. Fortunately, most Americans don't see things this way. From the perspective of American politics, Obama is far left and is currently pandering to the center.

In other words, you agree with the Rightwing's redefinition of the political spectrum, which makes your supposed heroine, Hillary Clinton, a "Leftist" just as much as Obama... given the overlap and similarity of their stated positions on the issues...

Tell me how that's not accurate, how the minor differences mean one is a "Leftist" and the other is not... Explain to me how a non-"Leftist" is now stumping strongly for a "Leftist"- Hillary for Obama...

Or are you just snakebit by poisonous rightwing labelling of anybody who's not them as "Leftist"? Leftist as compared to Mao? Castro? Cesar Chavez? How about somebody a little more moderate, like Segolene Royal? Maybe some of our own historical Leftists, like Eugene Debs?

You really have no idea of what you're talking about, nor do the usual dittoheads involved in this thread, so just quit it. You wouldn't know a real Leftist from your left foot.

Your view of Far Left is far too extreme to relate to anything in the current political climate in America. I agree that the most extreme leftist Democrats in America are center left by your definition and that there probably aren't any that you would call far left. My discussions are of current American politics where communists are so far to the left that they are irrelevant. I'll ask you, when reading my posts, to limit your view to American politics where far left has a different meaning.

I don't know what the Rightwing's redefinition of the political spectrum is but yes, Senator Clinton is pretty well to the left in my definition. I'm not saying that being to the left is a bad thing in itself. When you get so far to the left or right that you ignore the majority is when it gets wrong. Examples: drilling issue on the left and abortion on the right.

Obama has a very limited amount of history for anyone to make an accurate assessment of where he actually stands on the current American political spectrum but, the majority of that history has him on the far left. I prefer to have a President with enough history that his/her positions will be somewhat predictable and as close as possible to my own.

I can't respond to the rest of your post as you seem to have just lost it for a moment.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Lemme sum up the OP's position-

He somewhat realizes that the current batch of Repubs and their overpaid talking head sycophants are lying, cheating, stealing charlatans and conmen of the worst sort, yet somehow finds a way to believe them when they label the opposition as "Left" "Leftist" "eco-kooks" and "extremists"...
-snip-

Ummm.. You do realize that the "left" thingy is based on a study of his voting record and is not a fabrication of Rush et al.

I realize such *studies* are inherently subjective (of course, if this study upheld the left's view I'm sure I'd lambasted for mentioning that it's subjective), but AFAIK there are only two. One has Obama rated #1, the other has him rated #10 (IIRC).

I've read some critiques on the study rating him #1. While no one thinks it's perfect, no one can really claim that there's any other better method. It was also noted that Obama 's rating was higher in '07 than '06 due to some votes he missed that would have likely given him a lower ranking. I wish someone would check out those missed votes and try to determine if they were missed *on purpose* because he was campaigning in the primaries and try to please the Dem hard core types. I.e, he may brought the ranking upon himself as a consequence of preparing for the primary.

Now that he's running to the middle in the gen election (e.g., voted for FISA), I bet his '08 ranking will put him much lower.

I think the above is a better explaination of why the Dem nominee seems to have a high lefty ranking every election than the vast right-wing conspiracy spin stuff some of you are claiming.

Fern

The lack of a better method doesn't make this method good, objectively judging "left" or "right" in terms of a number or a ranking is probably impossible, especially as what's left or right changes over time.

The bigger point is that this is all a red herring, Republicans have campaigned for decades to convey the impression that left=baby rapist, which serves to make a perfectly reasonable political position into a campaign tool. Nobody calls Republican candidates "the most conservative...", because most people would rightly treat it as the non sequitur it is. Whether or not Obama is the "most liberal", of course he's a liberal, he's a member of the Democratic party. I imagine his lefty views are the reason most of his supporters are going to vote for him. The fact that Republicans have turned this into a campaign technique shows either how crafty they are or how stupid the average voter is, or maybe both.

 

[Jhhnn]

From RY62-

Your view of Far Left is far too extreme to relate to anything in the current political climate in America. I agree that the most extreme leftist Democrats in America are center left by your definition and that there probably aren't any that you would call far left. My discussions are of current American politics where communists are so far to the left that they are irrelevant. I'll ask you, when reading my posts, to limit your view to American politics where far left has a different meaning.

Heh. One thing's for sure, Liberals and Moderates of all stripes didn't voluntarily label themselves as "Far Leftists", now did they? No.

That's the work of the rightwing, more of the usual smears. It falls into the same category as "appeasers", "defeatists" and "terrorist sympathizers".

Basically, you're saying that day is day, and night is night, except in the US, where day is night... when it suits your purposes in creating an emotional reaction, invoking the tactics and rhetorical hyperbole of McCarthyism.

It's hogwash, like your feigned Hillary love...