Is Obama a Socialist?

[steelish]

Many have rolled eyes and shunned the idea that we might have a Socialist President who is trying to transform America. Before dismissing the thought, read these facts, then decide for yourself.

Barack Obama Sr. (Dad)

*Communist who saw nothing wrong with government 'taxing 100%' so long as the people got benefits...
- Obama Sr. on socialism (Link)
- Overview of the paper (Link)
*Harvard educated economist
*Nairobi bureaucrat who advised government to 'redistribute' income through higher taxes
*Demonized corporations
*Abandoned Barack Obama Jr. when he was 2 years old to continue at Harvard (teaching son that ideology is more important than family)

Stanley Ann Dunham (Mom)

*Communist sympathizer
*Practiced 'critical theory' (aka Marxism)
*Influenced by Nietzsche and Freud
*Left Hawaii for Indonesia, Pakistan
*Attended a leftist church nicknamed the 'little red church' because of its Communist sympathies
*Left Barack Obama Jr.

Mentor

*Barack's grandparents introduced Barack Obama Jr. to poet and communist Frank Marshall Davis (Link)
*Davis becomes a mentor as young Barack struggled with abandonment by parents

College & Church

*Admittedly sought out 'Marxist' professors (Link)
*Admittedly attended 'socialist conferences' (Link)
*Began attending a Marxist church - led by pastor Jeremiah Wright (attended for 20 years) (Link)

Career

*Tragedy of the Warren Court: No redistributive change (Link)
*Voted for TARP (Link)
*$787 billion stimulus redistribution bill
*Healthcare bill admittedly about 'redistributing the wealth'
*Single Payer Healthcare proponent (Link)
*President Obama now also President of GM & Chrysler
*President Obama seizes control of insurance giant AIG
*President Obama is leading America to single payer healthcare
*President Obama seized control of Student Loan industry in order to 'cut out middle man'
*President Obama seizes control in massive land grabs
*Repeatedly vilifies 'the rich'
*Obama believes race problems can be solved through redistribution of wealth... he said "race is still an enormous factor in our society. But economics can overcome a lot of racial division."
*Trying to regulate the Internet via FCC
*Forces mortgage co's to cover people who aren't paying mortgage (Link)
*Extends unemployment benefits to 99 weeks (Link)
*Told Joe the plumber 'it's better when you spread things around' (Link)

Family, Friends, Advisors & Administration

*Wife Michelle Obama said “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”
*Jim Wallis, Obama's spiritual advisor & forced redistribution of wealth advocate
*Van Jones, disgraced Green Jobs Czar & Communist
*Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Czar & anti-free market
*John Holdren, pro-redistribution of wealth
*Andy Stern, SEIU President & redistribution of wealth fan
*Anita Dunn, fan of Chairman Mao
*Mark Lloyd, FCC 'Diversity Czar'
*Carol Browner, socialist
*Robert Creamer, socialist

[Kendal]

Are you trying to suggest what he is on the basis of what his parents may or may not have been. That's a dangerous road to go down... sins of the father are vested in the son. We talked about this in another topic.

He met, read, knows, been influenced by socialists and communists. Yes, so what. I read Mein Kampf, does that make me fascist. Are politi'c's like contagious diseases - shake a man's hand and you catch his politics. If the President of the United States of America offered you his hand would you refuse that hand.

Would it not be better to look at what the man himself says rather than looking at what church his mother went to. Seems to me like political profiling or a McCarthy type evidence of a man's political beliefs. I once danced with a woman who danced with a man who danced with a communist.

Personally I hope he has socialists tendencies - if not he is in the wrong job as a left wing President. Dems are left yes. Socialism is the counterbalance to capitalism. What do want a ying without a yang. For me suggesting a left wing democrat is a communist is like suggesting a right wing republican is a fascist. If Obama is Stalin then McCain is Hitler.

The poor in every undeveloped country are socialist. The fact his "father advised government to redistribute income through higher taxes" is in my view a plus point. Most African bureaucrats steal from the poor to feather their own nest and become the rich. Looks like Obama Snr. wanted to steal from the corrupt rich to give to the poor. Good on him.

[steelish]

Would it not be better to look at what the man himself says rather than looking at what church his mother went to.

I guess you didn't click on every posted link, because he shows his Socialist beliefs in his own words.

It's one thing to have a liberal left wing President...it's another to have one who ignores the entire right and plows ahead with his own agenda. With him as President, there is no Yin/Yang. There's only Yin.

[Kendal]

I guess you didn't click on every posted link, because he shows his Socialist beliefs in his own words.

No I did not click on the links because I would not be surprised if he held socialist beliefs. In fact I expect him to. Most left wing politicians in Europe (including current and previous UK PM) have some socialist beliefs. So what.

If you just kept to the links then fine no problem. But you did not. You went on at great length in a long list about his mom and pop and what church they went to and what pop did in Nairobi etc etc etc etc. My post was address at the relevance of that - not the links.

[DuncanONeil]

If you read "Mein Kampf", more power to you. But in the case of Obama it is not one book. It is a lifetime of association. There is evidence that the values of any given person are set by the time they are ten. Of course that is not set in concrete, but in this case the beliefs of the Presidents youth are mirrored by his associations in adulthood.
We are not presented with an aberration in his belief system but a compendium of a large set that all is of a kind.

Government control of everything is not a counterbalance to anything. Least of all Capitalism!

Are you trying to suggest what he is on the basis of what his parents may or may not have been. That's a dangerous road to go down... sins of the father are vested in the son. We talked about this in another topic.

He met, read, knows, been influenced by socialists and communists. Yes, so what. I read Mein Kampf, does that make me fascist. Are politi'c's like contagious diseases - shake a man's hand and you catch his politics. If the President of the United States of America offered you his hand would you refuse that hand.

Would it not be better to look at what the man himself says rather than looking at what church his mother went to. Seems to me like political profiling or a McCarthy type evidence of a man's political beliefs. I once danced with a woman who danced with a man who danced with a communist.

Personally I hope he has socialists tendencies - if not he is in the wrong job as a left wing President. Dems are left yes. Socialism is the counterbalance to capitalism. What do want a ying without a yang. For me suggesting a left wing democrat is a communist is like suggesting a right wing republican is a fascist. If Obama is Stalin then McCain is Hitler.

The poor in every undeveloped country are socialist. The fact his "father advised government to redistribute income through higher taxes" is in my view a plus point. Most African bureaucrats steal from the poor to feather their own nest and become the rich. Looks like Obama Snr. wanted to steal from the corrupt rich to give to the poor. Good on him.

[DuncanONeil]

You believe that Government ownership and/or control of everything is good for the country? You cite European countries as the example of that position? Yet the fact that those countries are trending downward provides no concern?
Why must the USofA be like Europe?? The major problem with you view, socialism counterbalances capitalism, is that socialism also counterbalances liberty. That is most definately not a good thing!!

If so desire to live under the auspices of socialism perhaps you would be better served to choose a residence where such is already the manner of operation.

No I did not click on the links because I would not be surprised if he held socialist beliefs. In fact I expect him to. Most left wing politicians in Europe (including current and previous UK PM) have some socialist beliefs. So what.

If you just kept to the links then fine no problem. But you did not. You went on at great length in a long list about his mom and pop and what church they went to and what pop did in Nairobi etc etc etc etc. My post was address at the relevance of that - not the links.

[steelish]

No I did not click on the links because I would not be surprised if he held socialist beliefs. In fact I expect him to. Most left wing politicians in Europe (including current and previous UK PM) have some socialist beliefs. So what.

If you just kept to the links then fine no problem. But you did not. You went on at great length in a long list about his mom and pop and what church they went to and what pop did in Nairobi etc etc etc etc. My post was address at the relevance of that - not the links.

So you think how someone is raised has absolutely no bearing on how they turn out or what they believe in?

He continues to live/think the way his parents did.

[denuseri]

Well if he is a socialist President...he is most certianly not the first one.

lol

[steelish]

Well if he is a socialist President...he is most certianly not the first one.

lol

No, but he is the first President to completely ignore the majority. He is the first President to welcome the advice of someone who bombed the Pentagon. He is the first President to welcome the advice of people who hate America and everything the country stands for.

There is a difference between past Presidents who believed in progress and change and the current President who wants to transform America into a completely different country.

[denuseri]

I honestly dont think he is transforming anything in as grave a matter as you are sugesting steelish.

Heck FDR was way more of a socialist and changed things way way more and faster than I think Obama ever will manage in todays quagmire of partisanship.

[Lion]

Why does socialism = less rights again?

Where were the Tea Party people when the PATRIOT act was being signed? I ask this because the understanding that I get is that Obama is signing away the rights of Americans. And in the last 10 years, I think the biggest threat to the American constitution was when security trumped freedoms.

Duncan said that European countries are trending downwards. A lot of countries are, US is too. Canada is comparitively socialist, and our economy is not going down. Feel free to decide the path of your own country, but saying that socialist countries are going down in a sweeping statement is inaccurate and misleading.

Btw, some people still think my responses are sarcastic. My questions are questions, and my comments are comments. I do not imply anything other then what I say. I am tired of people assuming I mean malice with what I say, or some sort of perverted, snarky response to others.

[Kendal]

So you think how someone is raised has absolutely no bearing on how they turn out or what they believe in? He continues to live/think the way his parents did.

People are no doubt influenced by their upbringing but it can go either direction. Some people rebel and are the opposite of the parents, others follow in the footsteps. My point was we should discuss Obama's politics not the politics of the parents or what church his mom went to.

Angela Merkel - chancellor of Germany - was raised in communist East Germany and an active member of socialist political parties. By your logic with her socialiast background and leanings Germany should be in chaos but Germany is doing a lot better than USA.

Jack Straw - UK Home Secretary - is a socialist whose father was imprisoned as a consciencous objector in WW2. Yet Straw and his pal Tony Blair made UK the only power to join repulican Bush to invade Iraq and Afghanmistan. America had no problem with Tony or Jack's socialism.

You see it in such black and white terms. Anybody who wants fairer wealth redistribution is a socialist, a socialist is a communist and communie bastards are the enemy. I don't see it that way. In the UK the entire Labour party are socialist, Sweden has cradle to grave welfare programs and Canada, as Lion points out, has socialists policies. These countries are not in chaos and manage to tick over okay.

To address your question. No Obama is not a socialist. He would be laughed out of a socialist convention. He would be considered right wing in Europe. Yes he has been influenced by socialist thinking and the poverty and corruption he has undoubtely seen in Africa and Asia. Yes some of his policies and thoughts are closer to socialism than those of the Republicans but that does not make them socialist.

No, but he is the first President to completely ignore the majority.

Wow - you guys are lucky. In UK all our Prime Ministers ignore the majority. This is how it works. You get a majority vote by hook or by crook and then when you are in office you claim you have the mandate of the people and do whatever you want to do. Then fours years later the people vote you out or decide that maybe it was not so bad after all and at least you are the lesser of two evils and vote to keep you. That's politics in a two party system.

[DuncanONeil]

In a socialist controlled country a person is not free to make their own choices. Nor are they free to choose the uses for the fruits of their labors.
Others are making those decisions for them.

As for the Patriot Act and the tea party, um it did not exist?

Why does socialism = less rights again?

Where were the Tea Party people when the PATRIOT act was being signed? I ask this because the understanding that I get is that Obama is signing away the rights of Americans. And in the last 10 years, I think the biggest threat to the American constitution was when security trumped freedoms.

Duncan said that European countries are trending downwards. A lot of countries are, US is too. Canada is comparitively socialist, and our economy is not going down. Feel free to decide the path of your own country, but saying that socialist countries are going down in a sweeping statement is inaccurate and misleading.

Btw, some people still think my responses are sarcastic. My questions are questions, and my comments are comments. I do not imply anything other then what I say. I am tired of people assuming I mean malice with what I say, or some sort of perverted, snarky response to others.

[DuncanONeil]

Steelish did not limit herself to Obama's parents. Nor even only those that raised him.
Although you are going to great lengths to include only those sources.
The vast majority of Obama's mentors, associates, confidants, advisers, and friends are members of the radical left. Unapologetic, at that, of the violence they did.
The totality, that you ignore, makes the conclusion of Obama being socialist appropriate. Add to that his blatant disregard of the will of the people means we need to see the end of an error Jan 20 2013.

Socialists are not communists. Just how do you propose to go about making a "fairer wealth redistribution". Any plan to do so is going to confiscate from those that produce in favor of those that do not. Yes that is concrete but you know full well what is meant.
Obama is not socialist, answered that already!

The lesser of two weevils are what got them into office. This is one of the only Presidential candidates that actually had was actually composed of no planks. His entire campaign was "change"! Each and every person heard that and believed that he was going to change their personal peeve. This campaign, that has yet to end, was the most egregious in promising everything to get the power to not govern but rule.
We tossed King George! We will toss King Obama - and his nobles & barons!

People are no doubt influenced by their upbringing but it can go either direction. Some people rebel and are the opposite of the parents, others follow in the footsteps. My point was we should discuss Obama's politics not the politics of the parents or what church his mom went to.

Angela Merkel - chancellor of Germany - was raised in communist East Germany and an active member of socialist political parties. By your logic with her socialiast background and leanings Germany should be in chaos but Germany is doing a lot better than USA.

Jack Straw - UK Home Secretary - is a socialist whose father was imprisoned as a consciencous objector in WW2. Yet Straw and his pal Tony Blair made UK the only power to join repulican Bush to invade Iraq and Afghanmistan. America had no problem with Tony or Jack's socialism.

You see it in such black and white terms. Anybody who wants fairer wealth redistribution is a socialist, a socialist is a communist and communie bastards are the enemy. I don't see it that way. In the UK the entire Labour party are socialist, Sweden has cradle to grave welfare programs and Canada, as Lion points out, has socialists policies. These countries are not in chaos and manage to tick over okay.

To address your question. No Obama is not a socialist. He would be laughed out of a socialist convention. He would be considered right wing in Europe. Yes he has been influenced by socialist thinking and the poverty and corruption he has undoubtely seen in Africa and Asia. Yes some of his policies and thoughts are closer to socialism than those of the Republicans but that does not make them socialist.

Wow - you guys are lucky. In UK all our Prime Ministers ignore the majority. This is how it works. You get a majority vote by hook or by crook and then when you are in office you claim you have the mandate of the people and do whatever you want to do. Then fours years later the people vote you out or decide that maybe it was not so bad after all and at least you are the lesser of two evils and vote to keep you. That's politics in a two party system.

[Lion]

In a socialist controlled country a person is not free to make their own choices. Nor are they free to choose the uses for the fruits of their labors.
Others are making those decisions for them.

As for the Patriot Act and the tea party, um it did not exist?

Are you confusing socialism with communism? European countries are socialist, but citizens over there have rights that are found in US (free speech, press, assembly).

Fruits of their labour? Again, residents of socialist countries do pay higher tax rates compared to US, (I can think of a few Scandinavian countries), but enjoy a higher standard of living then US. They also buy cars, houses, electronics, furniture, sex toys, etc, and the government isn't telling them which ones to buy. So again, are you confusing communists with socialism, cause it seems that you have them confused.

My question regarding the PATRIOT act is where were most of these current Tea party activists when THEIR rights were beign eroded. My issue with these activist, and this whole movement is that it seems to be highly partisan. When there was a Republican in office, there was no huge protest when they signed a $700 billion dollar bailout. The country marched into a second war without so much of a plan in any regards (post war, financial aspect, etc), and 4 years after the fact, there was no Tea party movement, no outrage over the government's unplanned war. When the government expanded under Bush, again, there was no large protest on 'big government', or accusations that Bush is a socialist. Year after year, the country was running a deficit, but no protest about fiscal responsibility. Obama's in office, now people all of a sudden seem to care that there are bailouts, wars, deficits, and czars.

[Kendal]

Republicans want the other man out and their man in. This is to be expected. Fifty years of cold war and hollywood movies have conditioned Americans to believe the communist is evil and spells the end of the world. The average American does not know the difference between socialism and communism. Convince him Obama is socialist and its a short step to say he is a commie and it is your patriotic duuty to fight him.

What bothers me is the behind the scenes work here. I see a republican party campaign HQ with highly paid advisors coming up with dirty tricks on how to influence public opion. One says - lets suggest he is not American born and spread some BS about his birth certificate. Nah says another - lets imply he is a commie.

This is wrong. It does not matter what he is, what matters is his policies and perrformance. You don't like his healthcare reforms, fine bash him on that by all means but don't bash him because of what church his mom went to or what books he read as a student.

[steelish]

Wow - you guys are lucky. In UK all our Prime Ministers ignore the majority. This is how it works. You get a majority vote by hook or by crook and then when you are in office you claim you have the mandate of the people and do whatever you want to do. Then fours years later the people vote you out or decide that maybe it was not so bad after all and at least you are the lesser of two evils and vote to keep you. That's politics in a two party system.

That is NOT how this country was designed nor intended. That might be politics in YOUR two party system, but not in ours.

In our system there IS supposed to be transparency. There IS supposed to be representation. Our representatives and senators are supposed to find out what the majority in their districts want, then go to Washington and represent them. The President is supposed to listen to what the senators and representatives say, and act accordingly. That obviously is not happening now. We have senators and reps "getting in bed" with the President's agenda, and damned to the people!

[steelish]

Republicans want the other man out and their man in.

I don't give a rat's ass whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office. What I care about is that someone who loves this country and respects the process is in office. I want someone with ideals in office, not someone who thinks that the founders of the Weather Underground are "ok" peeps. Not someone who thinks a person who believes in forced steriliization is "ok" peeps. Not someone who thinks a person who hates America is "ok" peeps. Not someone who thinks a person who admires Chairman Mao is "ok" peeps. Not someone who thinks a person who admires Chavez is "ok" peeps. Not someone who thinks a person who admires Castro is "ok" peeps.

[steelish]

I honestly dont think he is transforming anything in as grave a matter as you are sugesting steelish.

Heck FDR was way more of a socialist and changed things way way more and faster than I think Obama ever will manage in todays quagmire of partisanship.

So FDR's first year in office he
*became President of two major American auto manufacturers?
*he seized control of an insurance giant?
*he lead America to a single payer healthcare system?
*he seized control of the Student Loan industry in order to 'cut out middle man'?
*he seized control in massive land grabs?
*he added trillions to the deficit in one fell swoop?

Remember this speech?
or how about this?
Hmmmmm...

I agree that we've had many Socialist Presidents who have "set the stage", but I believe Obama is doing more damage to America and doing it more quickly than ever before and I think it's time for Americans to stand up and take control of the country through the polling booths once again. For too long now we've simply voted for known names, popular names, etc. instead of voting with our heads and values.

[Lion]

So FDR's first year in office he
*became President of two major American auto manufacturers?

I wasn't going to address this, but since you brought it up again to affirm your point, I feel it prudent to clarify this.

Obama is not the president of GM and Chrysler. The CEO of GM is Whitacre while the CEO of Chrysler is Marchionne.

The federal governments of Canada and US, and the Provincial government of Ontario have loaned the two companies money in order to restructure themselves, and remain viable. It is unfair that a large company gets the advantage of public funds, while a small business does not. But the issue at hand here is that millions of families would be affected if just these two companies fail. Downside to pure, unadulterated capitalism is that if an industry leader fails, the public suffers. Between the choice of hundreds of thousands of people becoming unemployed overnight, worsening the whole housing mess even further, and loaning money to these companies with public funds (which they have to return), I choose jobs. You may disagree, which is fine. What you can not state though, is that Obama is the president of these two companies. Without government loans, there would be no GM, no Chrysler today. Tax payers are shareholders of the company. Obama cannot become president of a company by using tax payers money.

*he lead America to a single payer healthcare system?

Again, no he didn't. I wish people really informed themselves with what was included in the bill. There is no death panels, no conspiracy to become the Soviets, and no single payer healthcare system.

Single payer is what we have in Canada. Public Option which was what the Dems were trying to push until Liberman demanded it's removal, was a system to offered an alternative to private healthcare for those who otherwise wouldn't have access to it.

*he seized control in massive land grabs?

The federal government buying more land is socialist? The 14 sites were selected designated to protect National landscapes. There are tons of federal and state parks that aren't considered land grabs when they were first proposed, so why is this? I visisted the Adirondacks, and fell in love with the place. Gas stations made money by me fueling up, the local bar made money when I ate there. There were boat tours, and a vast number of services offered to tourists. Economic activity was not depressed.

And this land belongs to the government, your government. Not Obama, so when a Republican gets into office, it still belongs to the government. Democratic government or Republican government.


Bah...not going to address all the points. I don't want to write a book.

[Canyon]

Of course Barak Obama is a socialist. His entire history, politics, etc lead one that direction I remember a quote, which I wish I could find but can only remember part of where he said "make no mistake, I am a progressive." He said it somewhere on the west coast, after his comments about Pennsylvanians. Progressive is a word often used if "Liberal" or "Socialist" (yes I am aware there are minor differences between them, but they are generally similar) will drive away votes. I am only dissapointed, that in American Politics, people misrepresent themselves to get votes. There are honesty and integrety issues here and I wonder who is truthful. One of the leaders of the Democrats, Nancy Peloci, recently said something to the effect of "you say a lot of things on the campaign trail." And on that point, I'm dissapointed in all politicians and parties who say what are effectively lies.

[steelish]

I wasn't going to address this, but since you brought it up again to affirm your point, I feel it prudent to clarify this.

Obama is not the president of GM and Chrysler. The CEO of GM is Whitacre while the CEO of Chrysler is Marchionne.

But he is their boss.

Again, no he didn't. I wish people really informed themselves with what was included in the bill. There is no death panels, no conspiracy to become the Soviets, and no single payer healthcare system.

Single payer is what we have in Canada. Public Option which was what the Dems were trying to push until Liberman demanded it's removal, was a system to offered an alternative to private healthcare for those who otherwise wouldn't have access to it.

So you didn't watch this entire video?

The federal government buying more land is socialist? The 14 sites were selected designated to protect National landscapes. There are tons of federal and state parks that aren't considered land grabs when they were first proposed, so why is this? I visisted the Adirondacks, and fell in love with the place. Gas stations made money by me fueling up, the local bar made money when I ate there. There were boat tours, and a vast number of services offered to tourists. Economic activity was not depressed.

And this land belongs to the government, your government. Not Obama, so when a Republican gets into office, it still belongs to the government. Democratic government or Republican government.


Bah...not going to address all the points. I don't want to write a book.

And you are unaware of what I am referring to. I am not talking about undeveloped land to be set aside as National Parks. Here is an article written June 2009:

The nation took a step closer to the largest federal land grab in the nation’s history last week, according to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).

That’s thanks to passage of the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

In basic terms the CRWA (S. 787) would grant the federal government authority of all water – both navigable, which it now presides over, as well as non-navigable.

Without defining and confining federal authority to navigable waters, an NCBA spokesman said, “…the CWRA would expand federal regulatory control to unprecedented levels – essentially putting stock tanks, drainage ditches, any puddle or water feature found on family farms and ranches – potentially even ground water – under the regulatory strong-arm of the federal government.”

Though the bill was amended last week, NCBA officials explain, “The amendment is a smoke screen that allegedly takes care of agricultural concerns by exempting prior-converted croplands from federal jurisdiction. Cattle are generally not grazed on prior-converted croplands, so this amendment does nothing to mitigate the potential damage to livestock production from this legislation. The amendment is a diversion from the real issue, which is the removal of the word ‘navigable’ from the definition of waters.”

NCBA and Public Lands Council oppose the legislation because it obviously infringes on private property rights, but also because it limits the state partnerships and flexibility that have made the current Clean Water Act successful.

[tedteague]

He's NOT a socialist. He's a statist

[tedteague]

No, but he is the first President to completely ignore the majority. He is the first President to welcome the advice of someone who bombed the Pentagon. He is the first President to welcome the advice of people who hate America and everything the country stands for.

There is a difference between past Presidents who believed in progress and change and the current President who wants to transform America into a completely different country.

I dunno, Bush did a lot of stuff the majority does not agree with. Furthermore, there is actually a lot of support from the left in favor of healthcare reform. He isnt necessarily going against the majority

[tedteague]

That is NOT how this country was designed nor intended. That might be politics in YOUR two party system, but not in ours.

In our system there IS supposed to be transparency. There IS supposed to be representation. Our representatives and senators are supposed to find out what the majority in their districts want, then go to Washington and represent them. The President is supposed to listen to what the senators and representatives say, and act accordingly. That obviously is not happening now. We have senators and reps "getting in bed" with the President's agenda, and damned to the people!

Its the peoples responsibility to vote on senators and reps. If Congress has 20% approval rating, and a 90+% re-election rate, thats nobodys fault but the voters

[Canyon]

Its the peoples responsibility to vote on senators and reps. If Congress has 20% approval rating, and a 90+% re-election rate, thats nobodys fault but the voters

Hard to argue. Incumbents rig it for themselves of course. Amending their remarks to sound better than they did on the debate floor, voting present, so they do not have to earn their pay and make a decision (or not be identified by a voting history for what they are), like they were elected to. Managing to sound as conservative, and reasonable as possible on the re-election trail, pretending that they are trustworthy. If we are fooled, its our own fault.

The only thing that matters to me about an incumbent, or someone with past political office running for another, is his history, not his speeches and promises. Even if he changes positions, to get my vote, he has to show me why (I do allow people to grow and change. but if they want my vote, then they can tell me why.), and have time before the election to actually attempt to implement his new view (example: if you go from pro choice to pro life, propose or vote for something pro life). Any thing less than that and I suspect its one of those flip-flops often used to get a vote, prior to the inevitable flop-flip back after the election.

[steelish]

Its the peoples responsibility to vote on senators and reps. If Congress has 20% approval rating, and a 90+% re-election rate, thats nobodys fault but the voters

You're absolutely right. That's why it's also our responsibility to regain control (as concerned American citizens "regaining" our Republic). We've sat idle too long, trusting in our elected officials, believing that the "greater good" would prevail. Well, we've learned such is not the case.

[DuncanONeil]

He's NOT a socialist. He's a statist

Statism (or etatism) is an ideology advocating the use of states to achieve goals, both economic and social. Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning.

Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

I don't see any real difference here!

[DuncanONeil]

Prior to the vote on the health care takeover some 70% of the people were opposed to passage of the bill as written. That is a significant number!! Totally ignored!

I dunno, Bush did a lot of stuff the majority does not agree with. Furthermore, there is actually a lot of support from the left in favor of healthcare reform. He isnt necessarily going against the majority

[DuncanONeil]

Its the peoples responsibility to vote on senators and reps. If Congress has 20% approval rating, and a 90+% re-election rate, thats nobodys fault but the voters

Agreed! But that does not absolve those in Congress of responsibility to honor their oath of office!