Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

I'd call him a pragmatist, willing to compromise on most anything. He certainly isn't liberal enough for my taste.

 

In my view being "moderate" is equal to being indecisive, to being uncertain, to having no convictions. I realize there are different ways to define "moderate", I do not subscribe to the idea that "moderation" is about a chart of issues with a person being equally on the right on some issues and being on the left on other issues. If this is used as the definition, I am a "moderate" - and I am certainly no "moderate" - I hold strong libertarian views. There is no "moderate" position on war. No "moderate" position on abortion. No "moderate" position on gay marriage. There is no clean coal, i.e. you can not just combine two contradictory terms and call it a day - something Obama does to a sickening degree.

 

On the issue of abortion, a moderate position, or one at least in which there should be consensus, would include policies and programs that minimize abortions.

Yet, among most of the anti-choice crowd, the only acceptable policy is promoting a failed policy of abstinence only. It never ceases to amaze me how those opposed to abortion want to gut family planning programs or any comprehensive sex education programs.

 

They're not genuinely interested in the lives of fetuses. That is just a lie.

Their absolutely central priority is to punish young women for freely having sex.

Their ultimate goal is to make sure that fornication has consequences.

It is a mistake to attribute any good faith whatsoever to anti-abortionists.

 

In consideration of moderate politics for its more pragmatic approach suggests elements of extremes operating outside of the generally accepted political rules, I would prefer not to include those elements. What is sensible and within accepted rules of politicking - are the tools available. If moderation suggests a party is unwilling to use all the tools to move their agenda I again would argue a lack of conviction. Example - if a Senator finds the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice unacceptable how does this person respond in moderation? It seems based on this discussion the response is in compromising on their view of unacceptability rather than the use of all available tools within the rules to block the nomination. I would not be comfortable with moderates. The moderate will always be the first to compromise. Those at the extreme will know this. From the pragmatic assessment of the short-term costs or consequences those cost can quickly out-weigh the comfort level of the one who is a pragmatist and by this definition moderate. The known moderate comes to the table in a position of weakness.

What if the moderate and the extreme share the same motivation for war? I agree with the above assessment assuming different motivations - one party may have radical motivations or Reactionary motivations as described. What happens when there is consensus on the motivation, how does the moderate approach war compared to either extreme? The above suggests that there is a pragmatic approach to war. My argument is consistent in that the pragmatist is at a grave disadvantage from the start. If the intent is to use war (even assuming it is the last option), is the moderate unwilling to do what needs to be done to successfully execute the war in a most advantageous manner? Eisenhower was faced with the decision to use atomic weapons it is often argued that this was the most efficient way to end the US war with Japan - was this extreme, moderate? I would argue it was an extreme measure that gave us the best result given the circumstances.
--- merged: Oct 14, 2014 at 5:39 PM ---

Your statement is flawed. Minimizing is to go to zero. I understand your intent - you believe that there is an acceptable threshold of abortions. for those who believe abortion is choosing to kill a viable fetus and that that choice should be illegal - abortion should be met with a legal consequence in those circumstances. Regarding acceptable thresholds, it is confusing to those, like me, who feel a viable fetus should have the option of life outside the womb. I get acceptable thresholds for speeding on the roads, or sorting errors by the Post Office, etc, but not for aborting a viable fetus. If my interpretation is correct, the moderate position is confusing.

There are other alternatives. Not all fall into the same category. Personally, I have no objection to the morning after pill, or aborting a non-viable fetus. Others hold more extreme views regarding when human life starts. Does my view make me a moderate?

Again, assuming the same motivations...what do you think? For example, I do not support minors going into a family planning center and getting an abortion without the knowledge of a responsible parent/guardian or court order. Do you? Any family planning center engaged in this kind of activity should be shut down in my view. I have no issue with them treating adults, within the law.

 

A moderate will not go to war based on faulty intelligence that does not support a pre-determined political objective(, as opposed to a national security objective of the highest order, as was the case for the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

This was the most significant conclusion of the Senate Intel Committee (Repub Chairman) on Iraa WMDs.

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing
Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

Did Bush/Cheney know it was "questionable" at best? At the very least, we know they withhold the doubts expressed by some in the intel community from Congress. That is extremism at its worst; risking the lives of American men and women in uniform based on mischaracterized intel.

 

Many find the decision to abort a very difficult decision. The decision to abort haunt some people for the rest of their lives - punitive all by itself.

Again, in my mind there is a big difference between an adult making the decision before the fetus is viable outside the womb and a child (minor) making that decision - not to mention the real probability of statutory rape being a matter for consideration.
--- merged: Oct 14, 2014 at 5:46 PM ---

Does a moderate order drones to bomb targets with the possibility of innocent collateral lives lost?

 

Not flawed at all, Ace. There is a common goal to make abortions less frequent. Both sides have stated that goal.

Only if you are open to building consensus that puts you and pro-choice advocates closer to that shared goal.

But it is not really about you or me, but those who make policy and the unwillingness of the extreme right to consider any family planning programs that might help come closer to that goal.

The issue of minors is one that most reasonable people would likely be open to discussion, if the issue of incest or personal safety of the minor was also part of the discussion.
--- merged: Oct 14, 2014 at 5:50 PM ---

No, but who claimed Obama was a moderate on national security?

 

A common goal? If person A's goal is zero and person B's goal is a 10% reduction in the next year - I would not say they have a common goal.

True, perhaps I made a bad assumption. I argue Obama is incompetent, weak or simply lacks a clear vision on national security. Those that defend him are not always clear.
--- merged: Oct 15, 2014 at 11:49 AM ---

FDR was a loved President during the Great Depression. What was it about him that made people respond favorably - they trusted and had confidence in FDR's leadership.

Clinton was a benefactor of a time of peace and the economic framework established by Reagan. The financial crisis at the end of Bush's terms was due to housing policy and lending practices that got out of control starting while Clinton was President.

 

Zero abortions is unreasonable and unattainable given that if all abortions were banned, underground abortion mills would flourish or women would go outside the country.

That is why that goal represents extremism with no willingness to find consensus towards a more attainable goal.

 

FDR was loved by the average folk but deeply hated by the 1%.
In fact many of them and their children blame him for the 'state' of the country as it is now.
They've worked hard to destroy anything that is his legacy.

 

So this is the "expert" that Fox News brings to explain to its viewers what's going on in public health.

 

I just can't say how much of a nasty piece of work this 'doctor' has proven himself to be lately.

 

I am not disputing the position represents an extreme.

I argue there is no moderate position on the question of abortion. Killing a viable fetus is a form of murder in my mind and in law there should be no (zero) tolerance for purposefully killing a viable fetus.

Do you hold consistent in your argument on the subject of gun control? In some places possession of hand guns or concealed guns are outlawed (zero tolerance in law), or are you o.k. with a reduction? What is the end goal of extreme gun control advocates? I have no problem with waiting periods, licensing requirements for conceal/carry, punishment for irresponsible use, etc. - but I believe every American has a Constitutional right to bear arms or own guns. Am I a moderate on this issue?
--- merged: Oct 16, 2014 at 7:39 PM ---

Here is something for consideration. One who is an extremist can also be a pragmatist. Pragmatism, one way of looking at the issue, is a tactic.

I agree. To be clear, I have some libertarian leanings, in particular when it comes to social issues relative to choices an individual adult should be free to make when those choices do not infringe on the rights of others.

Yes, I am extreme on social issues (legalize all drugs), extreme on the limit of government controls (anti-excessive regulation - I don't want government telling me I can't buy a Big Gulp), extreme on when government has an obligation to act (national defense - I have no problem if we torture one enemy combatant to save thousands of innocent people), I even like my food extreme - hot and spicy! I would not say I am idealistic - I like consistency, clarity and I am results oriented.
--- merged: Oct 16, 2014 at 7:46 PM ---

FDR. JFK, Lydon Johnson.

And I had no issue with Bill Clinton as President, just believe he gets too much credit for the economy. And I did not support the over-reaction to his sexual issues - assuming he was not guilty of rape. I don't care what two consenting adults do.

I believe Obama helped the US turn the page on race issues. We are in a new chapter, it is one thing for a minority to become President it is another for the US to realize the true meaning of "...all men (and women) being equal..." With Obama, his failures over-ride his accomplishments by a large margin - but he is not all bad.
--- merged: Oct 16, 2014 at 7:49 PM ---

No serious Republican supports doing away with Social Security. Changing the program is one thing, it needs some modifications for the 21 century, but there is agreement on this vital social safety net for the elderly.