Posted on 01/04/2012 12:54:33 PM PST by RobertClark
President Obama, Demopublican
President Obama's signal accomplishments could easily have been signed into law by a moderate Republican.
The corporate Mainstream Media depends on ideological differences to generate "news" and advertising revenues, and the Status Quo depends on ideological differences to generate fear "of the other side" and enthusiasm "for our side."
As the 2012 election season kicks off in earnest, we have to ask: exactly what is the difference between President Obama's actual policies and those of centerist Republicans?
The president recently highlighted three centerpiece accomplishments of his supposedly rabidly Democratic administration:
1. Ending the war in Iraq
2. Ending the Armed Forces' policy of "don't ask, don't tell"
3. Passing sickcare reform, oops, I mean "healthcare" reform
If we examine these supposedly tremendous accomplishments, we find that moderate Republicans were equally capable of passing such lukewarm reforms. The war in Iraq was deeply unpopular, acceptance of gays is increasingly mainstream, and healthcare reform had been on everyone's agenda for years.
Anyone with the slightest grasp of American history could find equally "liberal" accomplishments in the administrations of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and even George Bush 1. Indeed, it could easily be argued that Obama ended the war far later than a moderate Republican might have, and that he caved into the sickcare Status Quo to such a degree that his "reform" essentially accomplishes nothing.
The hundreds of pages of reform boil down to a super-committee that is supposedly going to set prices and practices lower in the future. Meanwhile the program is at least 40% waste and fraud and continues growing at multiples of the underlying economy and tax revenues.
By any measure, this "reform" simply confirms the healthcare cartels remain firmly in charge.
On the other side the of the ledger, Obama continues the FUBAR war in Afghanistan, sacrificing American lives and treasure for political posturing, and he agreed ("with reservations") to a congressional bill that gives the President unprecedented rights to impose "prolonged detention" on suspected terrorists and handing them to the U.S. Armed Forces, even as the military insists it has no interest or need in assuming such detention responsibilities.
Would a moderate Republican have agreed to gut the Bill of Rights with such tepid "reservations"?
It can be argued that Obama, visibly uncomfortable with members of the Armed Forces and fearful of being labeled "soft" on terrorism, has carved out an essentially fascist policy far to the right of even "rock-ribbed" Republicans.
From a more objective view stripped of phony ideological parsing, what exactly is the difference between Obama's policies and those of moderate Republicans? We can get a better grasp on his Demopublican nature by asking a few key questions:
How many bloated weapons systems has he cancelled? (Zero)
How many overseas bases of the Empire has he closed? (none)
Who runs his financial policies? Wall Street cronies.
I think you get the idea here: there is literally no difference between Obama and a moderate Republican when it comes to the truly important policies governing the nation's insolvent finances, its predatory financial sector, its corrupt and fraudulent sickcare system or its sprawling Empire.
Obama's policies have all aided and abetted existing Status Quo cartels and fiefdoms. He has changed absolutely nothing of import except further eroding civil liberties.
President Obama can be charitably characterized as an ineffectual Demopublican. From those demanding more, then he can be accurately described as a well-meaning puppet of Wall Street and the rest of the Status Quo cartels and fiefdoms.
Longtime readers know I reject all the phony ideological "differences" between the two stooge parties; in reality, the differences are purely cosmetic and are exaggerated for propaganda and fund-raising purposes. Both stooge parties are in thrall to Wall Street and the financial sector, the sickcare cartels, etc., and both support a global Empire and endlessly rising public debt to finance their cronies. Both have consistently supported private profits while shifting monumental losses to the public. Both have consistently supported an out-of-control Federal Reserve. In every truly important way, the two stooge parties are merely two sides of the same Imperial coin.
No Republican would be instrumental in turning over Egypt, Libya and soon to be Syria over to the muslim brotherhood.
No Republican would be so anti-business, pro-government as Bari.
This Zero Hedge idiot is gladly spewing the Democrat Party line in order to burnish his bona fides with the elites.
Americans shouldn't buy a horse that has proven to be lame just because the horse says, "I'm Secretariat."
Lack of acuity is a fatal flaw. Or it can be feigned to deceive people.
The author is shallow in the extreme. Would a “moderate Republican” be suing Arizona and doing hundreds of other things the Whackjob leftists that stock this administration are doing?
Even the RINOs Romney and McCain would not have nominated Kagen and Sotomayor. Neither of these RINOs would go on an international apology tour. Neither of these RINOs would stand behind Eric Holder after fast and furious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.