If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   The President's speech reveals his time as a centrist has come to an end   (nytimes.com) divider line 189
    More: Obvious, modern liberalism, perpetual war, moderates, collective action, Mr. Johnson, State of the Union, speeches  
•       •       •

2923 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jan 2013 at 10:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-22 10:23:54 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-22 10:24:05 AM
emotibot.net
 
2013-01-22 10:25:24 AM
I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, same old, same old.
 
2013-01-22 10:26:13 AM
Ceasing to be a centrist is uppity.
 
2013-01-22 10:27:33 AM
Divide and Destroy.
 
2013-01-22 10:27:50 AM
Yeah, I totally think - hey, recipe for butterscotch glazed cinnamon rolls on the side bar!
 
2013-01-22 10:28:50 AM
That's a lot of analysis going into a speech that didn't actually propose any kind of policy or even outline a coherent philosophy toward the making of policy.

Also, no, no he won't. The dude's very clearly outlined his specific positions on basically everything at this point, farking deal with it like everyone else has learned to, NYT.
 
2013-01-22 10:28:58 AM
I have a feeling that the Selma, Seneca Falls and Stonewall line is going to go down in history books once the history of the gay rights movement is all said and done.
 
2013-01-22 10:29:27 AM
Ensuring cilvil rights and the future survival of our species is centrist? SIGN ME UP!
 
2013-01-22 10:29:43 AM
He's always been a centrist. The only people screaming that he is such a Lefty are riling up an ignorant Republican base who never needs facts to believe something fore-fed to them by Fox News.

All that said, I am hoping that he will stand up to the opposition party more than he did in his last term and possibly he will.

Maybe he learned that negotiating with the terrorists of the opposition party was a noble, but ultimately fruitless endeavor akin to teaching a pig to talk. Or maybe he realizes that he won't have to face a reelection bid.

Ultimately, I don't care about the reasons. I want him to be bolder and less willing to compromise away things that he shouldn't have to. The way he handled the debt ceiling this time around and to a lesser degree the fiscal cliff and the words in his Inaugural Speech give me hope.
 
2013-01-22 10:30:04 AM
So Obama is moving from center-right to center?
 
2013-01-22 10:30:26 AM
Let us hope.
 
2013-01-22 10:30:28 AM
you're starting to sound like a separatist.
 
2013-01-22 10:30:34 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
slangcath.files.wordpress.com

wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net
www.rfgeneration.com
i.istockimg.com
 
2013-01-22 10:30:43 AM

idiocy: I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, same old, same old.


This.

And I'd have to add, that if the allegation was true that it would be a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Our governance has swung way too far to the right, it would be nice to have an actual leftist figure drag things back left a little further and save us from the spiral of crazy.

And I say this as someone who has considered himself a conservative his whole life. "Conservative" now is just not what it used to be. Now it just stands for a flavor of statism that favors a particular type of religious law.
 
2013-01-22 10:30:52 AM
Really?  I thought he was the Most Liberally Liberal President in the History of the Planet Earth.
 
2013-01-22 10:31:16 AM
Wait. Obama was a centrist?

Silly me, I thought he was part of the overall rightward tilt of US politics, where Democrats are GOP light, and todays GOP, are the right on meth.

How about Obama moves left, towards the global center.
 
2013-01-22 10:32:17 AM

Jim_Callahan: That's a lot of analysis going into a speech that didn't actually propose any kind of policy or even outline a coherent philosophy toward the making of policy.

Also, no, no he won't. The dude's very clearly outlined his specific positions on basically everything at this point, farking deal with it like everyone else has learned to, NYT.


On the first part: agreed.

On the second part: doubtful. The gloves came off in the fiscal cliff, they  definitelycame off on the debt ceiling issue, and I think he is going to take zero shiat from anyone for the rest of this term. It may or may not work, but either way it should be interesting to watch unfold.
 
2013-01-22 10:33:41 AM
d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net
 
2013-01-22 10:34:02 AM

Vodka Zombie: Really?  I thought he was the Most Liberally Liberal President in the History of the Planet Earth.


What's more liberal than gutless centrism?
 
2013-01-22 10:34:39 AM

NYCNative: Maybe he learned that negotiating with the terrorists of the opposition party was a noble, but ultimately fruitless endeavor akin to teaching a pig to talk.


I think this is the most likely situation. Obama made a legitimate effort to work across the aisle and build consensus for much of his first term, and what did he get? The GOP bit the hand he was extending to them over and over again. I guess he's a) sick of it and b) realized that the GOP is going to shoot down his first offers anyway.

What he ought to do (and what I suspect he is doing here) is make is starting positions on every issue as far-left as he can, since the GOP made sure to shoot down all of his centrist proposals over the last 4 years.
 
2013-01-22 10:35:38 AM
Four years ago Obama said he would close Gitmo....

Talk is cheap.
 
2013-01-22 10:36:27 AM
This is all well and good, but he's still facing a House that is going to be just fine with doing jack crap for the next two years while district maps get redrawn across the country. We already know that reasoning with them won't work, and shaming them is literally impossible...what's left short of threats of violence?
 
2013-01-22 10:36:49 AM
Progressive values...like droning women and kids in the old double-tap...destabilizing Africa so we can go in and mop up the natural resources under the name of fighting 'terrorism'...refusing to prosecute any major Wall Street crimes...
 
2013-01-22 10:37:08 AM
FARK centrists. All that word means is someone who has morals and brains, but is willing to forget them in order to please the rich at the expense of everyone else.
 
2013-01-22 10:37:09 AM

rynthetyn: I have a feeling that the Selma, Seneca Falls and Stonewall line is going to go down in history books once the history of the gay rights movement is all said and done.


As the first time a president invoked equality of sexuality in an Inaugural Address, maybe.

We're on the back-end of the movement now (no pun intended) - the hard part, where we effect social change, is largely done, just look at nationwide polls on the topic. Marriage equality is now the law of the land in...12? states, voted on by citizens in 4 (I think that was the real "watershed" moment, if only one can be named).

Expect to see more state-level referenda in 2014, and probably a DOMA decision later this year. Hell, those referenda may not be needed in 2014 if the momentum moves fast enough (but I won't hold my breath).

This is the slow death of homophobia. I think that, just like racism is confined to a few derpy embers under a pile of ash, homophobia in 10, 20 years will be limited to a few outbursts by god-squad Congresspeople (who will soon be forgotten in disgrace, like Trent Lott), and hushed comments at dinner parties. Sure, pastors and other religious people, might still oppose, as well as other pockets of derp, but very few people are naive enough to think we've eradicated racism (and a similar naive few will likely believe at that point that we've eradicated homophobia).
 
2013-01-22 10:37:42 AM
What he's able to accomplish will mostly be determined by how he's able to adjust his approach from populist to effective politician.

Intransigency may appeal to his loyalists but imparting real, lasting change will require political skills within the walls of Congress. Finger-pointing and blame-laying won't enable the positive changes Obama articulates.
 
2013-01-22 10:38:06 AM

whistleridge: On the second part: doubtful. The gloves came off in the fiscal cliff, they  definitelycame off on the debt ceiling issue, and I think he is going to take zero shiat from anyone for the rest of this term. It may or may not work, but either way it should be interesting to watch unfold.


Eh, the gloves have already come off on a couple issues, they just weren't necessarily issues that the NYT likes to talk about-- dude swung for the fences to protect warrantless wiretapping, for instance, and the fiscal cliff bit panned out basically exactly according to his proposal.

Basically, even when he hits harder, he's going to hit harder for clearly-defined positions that he's essentially always held, just reprioritized based on what he can get passed.
 
2013-01-22 10:38:10 AM
Let's hope so.
 
2013-01-22 10:39:03 AM

OrangeSnapper: Four years ago Obama said he would close Gitmo....

Talk is cheap.


Yeah, that sucked, but he did try. IIRC, though, those EVIL TERRORISTS were so terrifying that no one in Congress wanted to put them in prison in their states/districts. Even in supermax prisons.

If you're a terrorist you have magical powers of destruction that can reach through the even the strongest of walls.
 
2013-01-22 10:39:17 AM
He could move to the left on social issues and still be a moderate (the meaning of "Centrist" has changed to mean "Person who thinks that the solution to every problem is the exact middle point between the GOP and everybody else"), y'know. Somebody's overall position is not based on only one or two of their opinions.
 
2013-01-22 10:39:46 AM
Hope for change still alive?

I'll go with not believing until I see actions that match the words.
 
2013-01-22 10:39:59 AM

OrangeSnapper: Four years ago Obama said he would close Gitmo....

Talk is cheap.


You mean he's not Emperor, and Congress can block him sometimes?

THE HORROR!
 
2013-01-22 10:40:05 AM

OrangeSnapper: Four years ago Obama said he would close Gitmo....

Talk is cheap.


oh yes, this old talking point. You forget the massive backlash he faced with moving the prisoners to prisons on our mainland? He faced stiff opposition from *every* congressman with a prison in their district because no one wanted "brought terrorists to our shores" as a campaign attack.

but please, proceed with your unfounded logic as to why Gitmo is all, entirely Obama's fault and not the fault of Congress who could shut it down if they agreed to dump the prisoners somewhere.

Here's an idea, why don't they legalize pot, get rid of those in the prisons for using and minor dealing and maybe, just maybe, we can move the terror suspects from Gitmo into the newly opened prison space and maybe we can shut down some of these prisons instead of blowing the prison industry-complex's cock
 
2013-01-22 10:40:41 AM
Hope and change haven't sold out yet.
 
2013-01-22 10:41:05 AM

OrangeSnapper: Four years ago Obama said he would close Gitmo....

Talk is cheap.


And then Congress refuse to allow any funds to be spent for that purpose.
 
2013-01-22 10:41:29 AM

Vodka Zombie: Really?  I thought he was the Most Liberally Liberal President in the History of the Planet Earth.


They have to admit that he was actually a centrist in order to continue scaring people into believing that he is getting more socialistic, fascist, anti-christy.
 
2013-01-22 10:41:37 AM
well, here's hoping.

But a centrist Obama is still far better than anything the GOP would unleash on America.
 
2013-01-22 10:41:41 AM

OrangeSnapper: Four years ago Obama said he would close Gitmo....

Talk is cheap.


How?

Specifically, how can Obama close Gitmo?

Keep in mind that Congress won't let him move any of the Gitmo detainees to US prisons.

The only thing he has the constitutional power to do is to grant everybody in there a full Presidential pardon. Now, while that is the moral and constitutional thing to do, it would be massively unpopular and guarantee Republican domination of the Federal government for years. Plus, some (not all) of the people held in Gitmo are actual terrorists, and the rest might become such if they were ever released unconditionally.
 
2013-01-22 10:42:32 AM

OrangeSnapper: Four years ago Obama said he would close Gitmo....

Talk is cheap.


Specifically, what more could Obama have done WRT to closing Gitmo that he failed to do?

He's president, not dictator.
 
2013-01-22 10:42:44 AM
Saying centrist things in a more forceful way doesn't mean he's abandoning centrism. Most of what he talked about is pretty straightforward and popularly supported. You have to go to the Progressive Caucus just to see center-left in American government.
 
2013-01-22 10:42:50 AM

illegal.tender: OrangeSnapper: Four years ago Obama said he would close Gitmo....

Talk is cheap.

Yeah, that sucked, but he did try. IIRC, though, those EVIL TERRORISTS were so terrifying that no one in Congress wanted to put them in prison in their states/districts. Even in supermax prisons.


Exactly. And it wasn't even a NIMBY thing, it was a "Not on US Soil!" thing.  So when a few states like (iirc) Indiana and Colorado said "we can handle them" the repubs from the south flipped out.

That one is entirely on Republican heads. Obama tried to close that thing down, the right-hand side of the aisle blocked it for talking points.
 
2013-01-22 10:44:02 AM

jayhawk88: This is all well and good, but he's still facing a House that is going to be just fine with doing jack crap for the next two years while district maps get redrawn across the country. We already know that reasoning with them won't work, and shaming them is literally impossible...what's left short of threats of violence?


Are you suggesting a Second Amendment solution? Fitting.
 
2013-01-22 10:46:44 AM

Holocaust Agnostic: Vodka Zombie: Really?  I thought he was the Most Liberally Liberal President in the History of the Planet Earth.

What's more liberal than gutless centrism?


Liberalism?
 
2013-01-22 10:46:54 AM
The Dems will overreach, paving the way for a Republican victory in 2016.
 
2013-01-22 10:47:20 AM
Pfft, if the West Wing taught us anything, it's that he wants to be more liberal but the daily minutiae, Republican Congress, and multiple sclerosis will result in no change.

Oh but I'm only on season 6 so far.
 
2013-01-22 10:48:01 AM

SlothB77: The Dems will overreach, paving the way for a Republican victory in 2016.


What are they over reaching on? It's the gays, isn't it?
 
2013-01-22 10:48:03 AM

Dr Dreidel: rynthetyn: I have a feeling that the Selma, Seneca Falls and Stonewall line is going to go down in history books once the history of the gay rights movement is all said and done.

As the first time a president invoked equality of sexuality in an Inaugural Address, maybe.

We're on the back-end of the movement now (no pun intended) - the hard part, where we effect social change, is largely done, just look at nationwide polls on the topic. Marriage equality is now the law of the land in...12? states, voted on by citizens in 4 (I think that was the real "watershed" moment, if only one can be named).

Expect to see more state-level referenda in 2014, and probably a DOMA decision later this year. Hell, those referenda may not be needed in 2014 if the momentum moves fast enough (but I won't hold my breath).

This is the slow death of homophobia. I think that, just like racism is confined to a few derpy embers under a pile of ash, homophobia in 10, 20 years will be limited to a few outbursts by god-squad Congresspeople (who will soon be forgotten in disgrace, like Trent Lott), and hushed comments at dinner parties. Sure, pastors and other religious people, might still oppose, as well as other pockets of derp, but very few people are naive enough to think we've eradicated racism (and a similar naive few will likely believe at that point that we've eradicated homophobia).


It's bigger than just that. The linking of the struggle for gay rights with the struggle for women's equality and African American civil rights as part of the broader trend of struggle to become more equal as a country is a bigger deal than just mentioning the word "gay" in an inaugural address. Democratic politicians have name checked gays for years, but always as a group that's still "other". The president , by saying clearly that gay rights are part of the exact same arc of justice as the rights of others, brought gay people into the American story the way no president has ever done.
 
2013-01-22 10:48:18 AM
If true: good. About time.
 
2013-01-22 10:48:42 AM

SlothB77: The Dems will overreach, paving the way for a Republican victory in 2016.


A very real possibility. The trendlines do not support this, though.
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report