It is almost like both parties want to lose....

[Frimp]

I think that this is somewhat of a myth, on a national scale.  Obama, as much as FOX wants to paint him a socialist, ultra-liberal, is basically a Republican from about 15 years ago.  He's a military hawk.  He has very mainstream views on most fiscal issues.  Socially, he's somewhat left, but even there, he's just changing to reflect the rest of the country.

Really?  Do you really believe that?

[mecadonzilla]

I think that this is somewhat of a myth, on a national scale.  Obama, as much as FOX wants to paint him a socialist, ultra-liberal, is basically a Republican from about 15 years ago.  He's a military hawk.  He has very mainstream views on most fiscal issues.  Socially, he's somewhat left, but even there, he's just changing to reflect the rest of the country.

This is definitely true.

[suck for luck]

Really?  Do you really believe that?

+1 LOL

[Sunstroke]

This is definitely true.

+1, minus the LOL

[Dave Gray]

Yeah, I absolutely believe that.

His military position is not very different from what we did under Clinton, Bush, Bush II.  It's hawkish.  He's on the offensive.  The liberal base isn't down with occupying Afghanistan.  He essentially modified Bush's war policy with a different strategy, but didn't back away from conflict at all.

And "Obamacare" is a modified version of Republican plans, supported by Nixon, Bob Dole, and even Mitt Romney. 

TARP (the bailouts) is another thing he gets pegged for, but this, again, was something signed in by Bush and supported by most Republicans.

And even on social issues, to this point, he hasn't pressed for marriage equality, legalization of marijuana, or other liberal social issues.

The concept that Obama is some far-leftist just isn't based in reality.

[bsmooth]

Has nothing to do with me being isolated to one side of the other. I actually don't get in to the whole republican or democrat thing. I pick based on the candidate. I would counter that the real problem is with the way the whole system is structured. In my opinion not voting for people that don't deserve my vote is the only thing to do. I won't pick the lesser of two evil.

We need a third option. But as long as people refuse to consider voting for a third party and instead do not vote at all, then we will never get out from under the greed and corruption of the current two-party system.

[bsmooth]

Yeah, I absolutely believe that.

His military position is not very different from what we did under Clinton, Bush, Bush II.  It's hawkish.  He's on the offensive.  The liberal base isn't down with occupying Afghanistan.  He essentially modified Bush's war policy with a different strategy, but didn't back away from conflict at all.

And "Obamacare" is a modified version of Republican plans, supported by Nixon, Bob Dole, and even Mitt Romney. 

TARP (the bailouts) is another thing he gets pegged for, but this, again, was something signed in by Bush and supported by most Republicans.

And even on social issues, to this point, he hasn't pressed for marriage equality, legalization of marijuana, or other liberal social issues.

The concept that Obama is some far-leftist just isn't based in reality.

I agree, his policies and actions do not indicate a hard-core socialist.

[Spider-Dan]

Dave, you are absolutely right.  There is a very apt analogy I've seen used: if the political spectrum is a football field, the Democrats are somewhere around their own 25-yard-line, Obama is around his own 40, and the Republicans are standing behind their own goalposts.

Solid Republicans from 30 years ago would be (and, in fact, are being) drummed out of the GOP today as RINOs; a common intraparty attack in the GOP is to accuse your opponent of being "moderate."  While the Democratic Party still has many congressional members that identify themselves as "moderate" and several that identify themselves as "conservative" (e.g. the Blue Dog Democrats), finding a congressional Republican today that actively identifies himself as "moderate" is tough, and I daresay that finding one that identifies himself as "liberal" is impossible.

Today's GOP is far, far to the right of Eisenhower, Nixon, or even Reagan.  It is only in that context that Obama is "one of the most far-left presidents ever": it is solely by virtue of comparison to his opposition.

[masterfins]

A High majority of President's move to the middle after being elected, they need to in order to get things accomplished.  However, Obama was pitching to the far left liberal base vs. Hillary Clinton who was more main stream.  As for Romney, I'd agree that he is more a centrist versus his primary opponents, but the only way he was able to outlast them THIS time is because he built up a base when he ran four years ago and got his but kicked.

[Spider-Dan]

A High majority of President's move to the middle after being elected, they need to in order to get things accomplished.  However, Obama was pitching to the far left liberal base vs. Hillary Clinton who was more main stream.

Are you talking about the 2008 Democratic primary?  If you really want to compare who was pandering more to their base in the primary, Obama in 2008 or Romney in 2012, I'm happy to have that comparison.  I don't recall Obama ever insisting that he was "severely liberal"...

As for Romney, I'd agree that he is more a centrist versus his primary opponents, but the only way he was able to outlast them THIS time is because he built up a base when he ran four years ago and got his but kicked.

I'd say the real reason he was able to win the primary is because he was free to tack as hard right as possible (seriously: Romney tried to position himself to the right of Rick Santorum on social issues!), with a wink & nod to the party establishment that he will instantly flip-flop pivot in time for the general.

[bsfins]

To be honest,I feel the whole Presidential election cycle takes too long,it's not 1876.It doesn't take a month or more to get from one area of the country to another.We are in a day and age of communication happens in seconds,and minutes,Not months,weeks,or even days.It's all a big business,and money grab....I have a hard time believing people need over a year to figure out whom they want,and make a decision...

Yet again,I think about how slow it is to get any type of real change in this country...Never mind...

[Frimp]

^^^

Also, you really need the time to properly vet the candidates. Thats what is supposed to happen anyway.

[masterfins]

Are you talking about the 2008 Democratic primary?  If you really want to compare who was pandering more to their base in the primary, Obama in 2008 or Romney in 2012, I'm happy to have that comparison.  I don't recall Obama ever insisting that he was "severely liberal"...

Yes I was talking about the 2008 Democratic primary.  I don't know where you are getting the "severely liberal" quote, because I didn't use those words.  What I said was that Obama was more liberal than Hillary in their race.  And no, I'm not making any comparisons between Obama 2008 and Romney 2012.  Hope this clears things up for you.

[Spider-Dan]

Yes I was talking about the 2008 Democratic primary.  I don't know where you are getting the "severely liberal" quote, because I didn't use those words.

In the 2012 primary, during a speech at CPAC, Romney insisted that he was "severely conservative."

I bring that up as an example of the difference in scope between the way that Democrats appeal to their base and the way that Republicans appeal to theirs.

[masterfins]

In the 2012 primary, during a speech at CPAC, Romney insisted that he was "severely conservative."

I bring that up as an example of the difference in scope between the way that Democrats appeal to their base and the way that Republicans appeal to theirs.

Gotcha, and I agree.  The GOP has made the word "Liberal" a dirty word, and Democrats don't like using the term because it scares off Republicans that may want to vote for them.  Whereas, Republicans wear the term "Conservative" like a badge of courage.