Obama won so now what...
Would JFK be considered a Republican today?
"If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." ~ JFK
Exactly the same as the current liberals.
The country as a whole has moved left since Kennedy's day no doubt (partially thanks to him) but the principles remain the same. Kennedy tried to pass universal healthcare too.
Wait what? "civil liberties"?
"someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad"
How in any way does this describe modern liberals?
Civil rights such as reproductive choice and gay marriage.
Reaching out in massive improvements made in America's image around the world and cordial relationships with Turkey and Russia leading to a significantly better situation with both those nations.
Oh, oh . . . so modern liberals protect particular liberties and are diplomatic towards some countries - not civil liberties and diplomacy in general. Why didn't you just say that?
Those were just examples the social issues are the prime civil liberties issues in America.
Our relationships with other nations and how they perceive us have improved in every single country outside the Middle East and most of those too if you want it in broader terms.
What about civil liberty issues that affect everyone like the police state? Where was the left when Obama basically continued Bush's draconian policies?
I would agree that liberal politicians look ahead - all the way to their next election. And that they care about the welfare of the people - at least their buddies that work for their re-election. They even care about the welfare, to some degree at least, of the man in the street - at least as long as that man will cast a vote for them.
Of course, I would say the same thing about conservative politicians....
Interestingly, I read an article earlier today that suggested Obama was comparative to Ronald Reagan, specifically the way Reagan changed the Republican party...It was Bloomberg I think, I will have to find the link...but I have been saying he reminded me of Reagan, I think Obama is a Republican in sheeps clothing, but he is socially Liberal, and that is the future of our contry in order to grow and change...He will go down in History much the way Reagan has...they both are very center, moderate, and that I believe is the best colllaboration of dueling ideologies, just my opinion
Are you serious or is that sarcasm? Because if you are serious about any of what you just said you are completely deluded. I'm just asking because I can't believe you actually think any of that is true. Neither one of them is (was) any type of moderate. Nothing about Obama is in any way Republican. Reagan was a great man who knew how to work with everyone and actually persuade rather than ignore and work around Congress. I can't believe you really are comparing them, so it must be sarcasm...
The part where you say "Reagan was a great man who knew how to work with Anyone," that personality type is called a liberal, it simply means those things listed in the beautiful example above ...Obama handles Foriegn Policy very much in a Republican vision, he handles communities like a liberal, and he handles financing as perfectly middle of the road and willing to compromise but does not back down and give in to being bullied, so yes, he is soooo middle, and a damn good POTUS
Obama is alot of things, but I agree he is no Ronald Reagan...
Is that a good thing... or a not good thing?
I'm sure he wishes he could compare... Reagan just gets better with time, but Obama won't.
IF you really think that in 50 years Reagan will be remembered as better than Obama you have a serious think coming
Obama is already being discussed as one of the great transforming presidents.
As for Reagan, rose colored (that's red diluted with pixie dust and time) glasses have created a nostalgic aura around his memory.
Nothing wrong with that. If you're into mythology.
What has he transformed exactly? Please, specifics.
Passed universal healthcare, was the first black president, was the first president to support gay marriage, got rid of don't ask don't tell, ended the war in Iraq etc. etc.
Reagan was pretty popular and successfully turned around a moderate recession, that's great but it won't mark the history books in the same way.
First and foremost, health care. (see link)
Equal rights for LGBT citizens and military and women.
More to come in term II with historic immigration reform.
And hopefully, the tax code as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/ … index.html
Right I forgot the dream act, my bad, very important for a very important and growing demographic.
The Dream Act has not been passed. An executive order is not an act.
It is to the people it affects, and Obama will be remembered as the guy who did the right thing and passed it against the bigotry.
So, undemocratic actions are good just so long as you agree with them?
The right thing is the right thing. That is how it will be remembered, there is nothing undemocratic about executive orders they are a power granted to the President who is elected thus they are in fact democratically validated, but what will matter in the future (which is what this discussion is about) will be that he passed it and if it was a struggle then it will be remembered all the more heroically (be that false or not).
Well I guess if social issues are what matter to you, you'll remember him fondly. I care about the bigger picture, and Reagan worked with other world leaders to change the world map and free millions from tyrrany and despair. That's transformation.
If that is your flavor the Arab spring is being celebrated across the world as a victory of democracy over dictatorship and that will be remembered too.
Don't forget we are comparing a president who has one term against a president who had twice the time.
Eh, it could be argued that the Berlin Wall was going to fall on its own....
What you actually believe Reagan was the cause of the collapse of the Berlin wall?
Seriously? Not that what Reagan did was not admirable but...
The wall feel because Hungary decided to let people through.
The wall fell because pressure from the outside and within the Soviet Union kept building. Who was putting the pressure on? Among others, Reagan, Thatcher, the Pope, etc. Capitalist ideals started working their way into the USSR and the people began to rise up in different ways. The government had lost some measure of control because they had been in an arms race with the US and were broke. They spent themselves out of power trying to keep up with us. I know you will disagree with me, because you proclaim yourself a socialist and will never agree that capitalism can be a good thing, but that doesn't change the facts.
Actually this has nothing to do with economic ideology it's as simple as Hungary decided that they would let people through for the summer which promptly spiraled as people got stuck. Now you can argue that maybe Reagan aided that decision but I certainly don't see any proof he was the cause of it, considering the demographics of Hungary it is more likely the Pope if any outside influence.
I am not and never was a supporter of the USSR let alone the wall, I actually wanted to go help demolish it with several good friends who did go but I was in hospital injured.
The point is any claim that Reagan caused the fall of the wall is groundless and without evidence.
So you admit that Reagan was but a small part of the fall of the Berlin Wall?
For Democrats, the picture is brighter.
Obama’s first-term achievements, including the health-care law and Wall Street reform, are now secure. A second term marked by an improving economy and capped with historic tax and entitlement reform seems well within reach.
That would put Obama among a select group of Democratic presidents. When the scope of his Nov. 6 victory became clear, some giddy liberals likened Obama to Ronald Reagan, the Republican whose legacy defined much of the last quarter century of American politics.
Such comparisons may be premature. But looking four years out, they are not unthinkable.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-0 … -deal.html
by Sooner28 8 years ago
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/20 … icans?lite Yeah those liberals at NBC trying to skew the president...As someone who considers myself a liberal, I feel lost when it comes to halting the erosion of our civil liberties, which is disconcertingly bipartisan in nature. George...
by James Smith 8 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … cNVxaNhE#!Have you ever felt like your blood is actually boiling? That's what it feels like to be peace and freedom lovers these days - those who may have an issue with kill lists, drone strikes and illegal wars. According to the Southern Poverty Law...
by taylord08 9 years ago
I follow the news and they are estimating that President Obama will win the 2012 election. Do you agree? I voted for Obama, but now I don’t know if I would again. I don’t blame him for where our economy is but do you believe he has made changes for the good or bad of this country? I’m interested in...
by Sooner28 8 years ago
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politi … 11-bargain Left source.http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ … -tsarnaev/ right sourcehttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/th … ous/12563/ Whatever way you think PBS leans, it's a good article.People from the left...
by James Smith 7 years ago
The modern left/right dichotomy is essentially a scam - an identification as either one is incoherent, and to say that cherry-picking from each 'side' is somehow 'moderate' is patently absurd. Every 'moderate' I've ever known is moderately awful.In the real world, the true dichotomy is: how far are...
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
With the addition of Justice Kavanaugh, the make-up of the Court is similar in temperament as the one that existed between 1840 and 1929. That Court destroyed American Civil Liberties then, and this Court will do the same. So let's see how the previous conservative Court ruled:* Prigg...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|