Is Obama A Republican?

[antsi]

Hate to disagree with you antsi, but you're seriously mistaken. The NRA supported the renewal legislation for the AWB, because it had a provision in it that would have protected gun companies from being sued. Right up until the GOA had rallied people and legislators were called the NRA was set on letting the legislation go through. Some of us were watching it unfold and know what happened.

I don't know where you're getting this account, but that's not what happened.

The original version of the manufacturers' lawsuit protection bill - the one that the NRA supported - did not have any AWB provision attached to it.

In the Senate floor debate, Democrats managed to attach AWB renewal to the lawsuit protection bill. This is the vote that John Kerry flew across the country in the middle of a hotly contested campaign to cast his vote in favor of AWB renewal.

As soon as the Democrats attached this measure, the NRA-backed sponsor of the bill got a cell phone call on the Senate floor from the NRA and promptly withdrew the bill.

I watched all this happen live on CSPAN. I remember it very clearly. The total span of events - from the time the Democrats introduced the AWB renewal measure to the time the NRA killed the bill - was about 25 minutes. Hardly time for the GOA to come riding over the horizon to the rescue and save the day.

It was a great moment. Fienstein, Kennedy, and Kerry were all jubilant because they took the same venal view of the NRA that you do, and thought they had gotten their measure passed. They were not pleased when the NRA killed their own bill.

After the election, the same bill came up again and was passed "cleanly" - ie, without the Democrats' AWB renewal attached to it.

I do remember the GOA and others predicting that the NRA would make a deal with Feinstein, Kennedy, and Kerry to pass their bill. This obviously did not happen. If the GOA is now claiming that they prevented something from happening by making an incorrect prediction, well, I'd put that squarely in the propaganda basket as well.

 

[Ramen]

I would suggest you take what these folks are saying with a grain of salt. Heck, make it a pound. Leftists masquerading as libertarians suffer from as bad a case of Bush Derangement Syndrome as the most hardened Democrat. Bush was no conservative, but not much of what you hear about him from these folks is to be believed without verification.

Could you please explain to me what was said that makes someone a "leftist"?

 

[Panama]

Instead picking through that steaming pile of for that kernel of corn you want, why don't we just see the entire article.

What an imbecilic left wing rant, 90% opinion, 10% fiction.

Here is the entire piece, of............

You shouldn't be offended that not everyone here shares your political view.
I am a proud Conservative, nothing more, nothing less.
I am not a Bush defender, nor am I an Obama supporter, by any stretch of the imagination!

However, thankfully I have enough of a brain not to be swayed by web sites with political axes to grind.


Is Obama a Republican?

When it comes to foreign policy, it's hard to tell Barack Obama and George W. Bush apart

Steve Chapman | January 14, 2010
Listen to Audio Version (MP3)




Anyone who was hoping the current administration would bring a modest downsizing of the nation’s defense establishment and global military role has to be feeling like Bernard Madoff’s investors. Escalation is underway in Afghanistan, the Army is expanding, and the Pentagon is on the all-you-can-eat diet.
The American political system is set up to persuade citizens that they must choose between starkly different policies. In reality, campaigns are mostly a showy exercise in what Sigmund Freud called the “narcissism of small differences.”
When it comes to defense, history suggests that the two major parties offer a choice on the order of McDonald’s and Burger King. Anyone looking back 50 years from now at objective indicators would have trouble identifying a meaningful difference between the current president and the last one.
For that matter, it’s easy to assume that when President Obama began addressing national security policy, he accidentally picked up John McCain’s platform instead of his own. Critics suspect Obama is a closet Muslim. But maybe his real secret is that he’s a closet Republican.
The administration and its opponents both make much of its plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by this summer and to pull the rest out by 2012. What both prefer to forget is that the previous president agreed to the same timetable. Obama’s policy on the war he once opposed is not similar to Bush’s: It is identical.
Afghanistan? Dick Cheney faults the president for allegedly failing to “talk about how we win,” as if Obama were doing far less than the Bush administration. In fact, Obama has agreed to more than triple the U.S. troop presence in a war that his predecessor only talked about winning. McCain called for a “surge” in Afghanistan like the one in Iraq. Obama has given it to him.
Republicans nonetheless entertain the fantasy that at heart Obama is a pacifist, bent on gutting our military might and naively trusting the good faith of our adversaries. Bush White House adviser Karl Rove recently complained that under this administration, “defense spending is being flattened: Between 2009 and 2010, military outlays will rise 3.6 percent while nondefense discretionary spending climbs 12 percent.”
Read that again: Rove believes that when defense spending rises 3.6 percent, it’s not really rising. Why? Because the rest of the budget is growing faster. By that logic, if I gained 10 pounds over the holidays but Rove gained 20, I’d need to have my pants taken in.
As it is, the United States spends more on defense than all the other countries on Earth combined. Yet we persist in thinking of ourselves as endangered by foreign countries that are military pipsqueaks.
Obama shares this view. He thinks the only problem with the American military is there isn’t enough of it. He’s expanding the size of both the Army and the Marine Corps. That’s right: After we begin leaving Iraq, the biggest military undertaking in two decades, we won’t need a smaller force. We’ll need a bigger one.
Sean Hannity accuses the president of “cutting back on defense,” but he must be holding his chart upside down. The basic Pentagon budget (excluding money for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) is scheduled to go up every year.
Over the next five years, defense spending, adjusted for inflation, would be higher than it was in the last five years, when Fox News commentators did not complain about inadequate funding. That’s not counting the increases requested by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to provide an additional boost of nearly $60 billion over those five years.
What all this suggests is that Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us nothing about the folly of invading other countries and trying to turn them into modern democracies. The essential theme of the administration’s national security policy is reflexive continuity. Why else would we need a bigger military except to do more of the same?
So we are stuck with the consensus that has ruled Washington for decades -- the expensive, aggressive policy that has inflated the federal budget and bogged us down in two unsuccessful wars while furnishing an endless, priceless recruiting message for Islamic terrorists.
Too bad. None of this would have happened if Barack Obama had been elected.

 

[PatMcGroyne]

THIRD PARTY !?!?

It's a sure way to keep Progressives in power another 4 ~ 8 years!! The force of Tea-Party voters can grab the Republican party away from the liberal bent in there, and then keep it a true Republican party. Join up with your closest Tea Party, and keep your ears and eyes on Glenn and Rush. Pat

 

[lashicoN]

Sorry for jacking the thread a little there guys. haha

 

[spartan933]

I think Obama's biggest problem is the leadership of his party. A lot of them need to STFU. If he actually did a "Damn the torpedoes!" and take a stand against some the more vocal idiots (not naming names) in his party, he wouldn't be that bad. But, he won't, so nevermind.

 

[feriil]

I'd love to vote 3rd party but its a risky thing to do so. Usually one candidate I despise the other I dislike. 2 major parties.

I'd much rather have the dislike than the despise in office, you know it's going to be a close race with only 2 parties (50/50), even 3% voting 3rd party could have historically affected the outcome of several elections.

I'm just choosing the lesser of two evils trying to avoid the greater evil.

 

[czar996]

I'd love to vote 3rd party but its a risky thing to do so. Usually one candidate I despise the other I dislike. 2 major parties.

I'd much rather have the dislike than the despise in office, you know it's going to be a close race with only 2 parties (50/50), even 3% voting 3rd party could have historically affected the outcome of several elections.

I'm just choosing the lesser of two evils trying to avoid the greater evil.

I have felt that EXACT same way for years and catch a lot of grief from my Rep buddies that think it is ppl like me that caused a failure in the last election. Finally I just realized that if no one ever has the guts to stand up and say ENOUGH with this crap we will never really get any change. I believe that this is the greatest country in the world and to keep it that way, we need real change. We have been headed down a destructive path for quite a while. At this point I do not believe the next prez will be any different than the last 3 or even 4. With my 3rd party vote I feel that I am voting for that change.
John Adams once said "Democracy, while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” IMO we are committing suicide. We need change or the greatest Democracy in history WILL die.

 

[IronHorseman]

I would argue his predecessor was not a republican, but a progressive. GW was anything but conservative. But, I did like that he did what he said, and said what he did.

Conservative republiucan is an oxymoron. If you want real conservatism check out the Constitution Party.

 

[IronHorseman]

Bush would have signed the stimulus in a heartbeat, Dross. And you know it. He signed virtually everything the democratic congress sent him and did it joyfully. H*ll, he was waiting to sign the AWB on the day it was up for renewal (with the support of the NRA, I might add). You don't have to far out on any wing to see the similarities between Bush and Obama. They're practically brother from different mothers.

Thank you for pointing out the the NRA showed thier true colors by backing BUSH. I recently reluctanly rejoined the NRA for competition reasons but when it comes to defending our rights the GOA is the way to go.

 

[antsi]

Despite my objections to the Bush-NRA-AWB element, I do generally agree with the premise that the Democrats and the Republicans have the same basic problem. Both parties have become big government statists. Both have proven willing to throw the Constitution under the bus to maintain their own power. Neither party is willing to make the necessary spending cuts to ensure a sustainable fiscal future - both parties have in fact been spending like drunken sailors. There are some minor differences around the edges - Republicans are generally slightly better on RKBA, for instance - but at heart there is not much to choose between them.

Re, lesser of two evils: we live in a fallen world, and no political party is going to be free from wickedness or the lust for power. Until the Savior comes back and takes charge, we will always be voting for the lesser of evils.

So we will never get the choice between a Purely Good candidate, a Lesser Evil candidate, and a Greater Evil candidate.

What we usually get is this choice:
a) Greater Evil
b) Somewhat Lesser Evil, who has a chance to win
c) Significantly Lesser Evil, who doesn't have a realistic chance

Obviously I don't vote for a). The choice between b) and c) comes down to just how much lesser evil, and just how realistic the chance of a win. For instance in the last election, if Guliani had been the GOP nominee, I'd have said he really isn't much lesser an evil than The Obama, and I'd have found some nut job from the Full Auto Militia Party to vote for. If the GOP had put up Huckabee, I'd have said he's nowhere near perfect, but a heckuva lot better than The One and supported him whole heartedly.

 

[antsi]

Thank you for pointing out the the NRA showed thier true colors by backing BUSH.

Because, obviously, Kerry and Gore would have been so much better for gun rights than Bush.

 

[IronHorseman]

Hate to disagree with you antsi, but you're seriously mistaken. The NRA supported the renewal legislation for the AWB, because it had a provision in it that would have protected gun companies from being sued. Right up until the GOA had rallied people and legislators were called the NRA was set on letting the legislation go through. Some of us were watching it unfold and know what happened.

GO! GOA

 

[IronHorseman]

I'd love to vote 3rd party but its a risky thing to do so. Usually one candidate I despise the other I dislike. 2 major parties.

I'd much rather have the dislike than the despise in office, you know it's going to be a close race with only 2 parties (50/50), even 3% voting 3rd party could have historically affected the outcome of several elections.

I'm just choosing the lesser of two evils trying to avoid the greater evil.

The 2 party system is the roasd to tyranny that is destroying the republic. Om election day people go to the poles with religious devotion to vote for Socilaist Party A or Socialist Party B. Neither party cares about preserving freedom they only care about being in power. Check out the constitution partry for a conservative alternative to the status quo.

 

[shibumiseeker]

I'd love to vote 3rd party but its a risky thing to do so. Usually one candidate I despise the other I dislike. 2 major parties.

I'd much rather have the dislike than the despise in office, you know it's going to be a close race with only 2 parties (50/50), even 3% voting 3rd party could have historically affected the outcome of several elections.

I'm just choosing the lesser of two evils trying to avoid the greater evil.

I want to be able to vote NO. I don't want to waste my vote voting against someone by voting for the lesser of the weasels, I want to have my vote be registered as NO against someone if I can't find a candidate I want to vote FOR.

 

[IronHorseman]

Because, obviously, Kerry and Gore would have been so much better for gun rights than Bush.

Because...

THe NRA is more than willing to compromise away our rights, just look at the veterans disarmament act supported by the NRA but opposed by the GOA

The NRA will give a favorable rating to any incombant that has not been a " Hostile to gun owners" , even if the failed to support pro-gun legislation.

It`s better not to endorse than to endorse the " Lesser of two Evils"


AS long as we will accept the lesser of two evils we will get what we deserve.

 

[glockednlocked]

oh lord