He confiscated private property claiming it was for the public good, what with freeing those slaves and all. Why, it got so a man wasn’t safe in his own plantation any more.
Part of being a centrist is you stop defining things in terms of left and right. You don’t say, “We can’t do that because it’s ‘left leaning’”, you say, “We can’t do that because the cons outweigh the pros”.
Similarly, you don’t obsess over “socialism” (or “racism”) and other such labels. You don’t reject a position becuase it seems to parallel a position taken by your political enemies. You weigh the pros and cons and try to strike a balance.
Well, for starters, he actually fought a war against the conservatives in his own country for the sake of his liberal policies. I don’t think that anybody’s burned down Atlanta under Obama’s orders yet.
Mine isn’t and I agree with Magiver completely. I don’t think Obama’s leftism is a BAD thing in and of itself, it’s farther left than I as a Centrist would like. 
But he’s definitely pretty far to the left.
He can govern from anywhere he wants, but if he wants my support in the future he had better make health care available to everyone. That was the most important promise he made. So far he has done nothing, but it is a bit early yet. If he doesn’t offer a satisfactory plan by the start of next year I will write him off.
I think the OP is looking at some Obama administration half-measures, which are decidedly liberal to left wing, and mistaking them as governance from the center. That would be a mistake.
Funding a liberal program at 90% and not 100% isn’t exactly centrism or even a compromise with conservatives - despite what some on these boards and in the media might think. And yes, I can come up with examples where these measures were indeed treated as such.
While I can’t say with any confidence that Obama is the most left-leaning President - he is no centrist and I totally agree that this thread IS a strawman to make Obama look good. You see a lot of these threads on the net and it merely a symptom of the massive cognitive dissonance that voting for him created: “I voted for him and he is turning out to be a dunce”.
Was he also the most liberal Senator as of 2006?
-Joe
What is “center” in America is what they call “right” in most industrial democracies. What is “socialism” in America is what they call “center.”
I’ve yet to see how this creates a problem, though. Assuming for the moment that Obama is the most left-leaning President in U.S. history… so? Is that automatically bad, or something? Who was the second-most left-leaning and how much did he manage to destroy the U.S. before saner, right-wingier heads prevailed?
Dunno about 2006 but he got the award for 2007.
Right, because he’s so much further left than Barry Sanders. We’d take those claims a lot more seriously if the likely Presidential candidate weren’t always labeled the “most liberal Senator”.
A good question that deserves its own thread. So I made one!
never mind, not worth it
He’s to the right…of many 'dopers. So…he MUST be either a centrist or even a quasi-right winger. 
No, I don’t think Obama is governing too much from the Center. I think he’d be well advised TOO govern more from the center…though as fucked up as the current situation is he’ll be lucky to keep his head above water, regardless of whether he swims to the right or left. Personally I’m hoping he swims UP and not DOWN (and takes the country with him in his upward swim)…I could give a shit about left and right atm.
I’m too old and fat to re-learn the joys of hunting and gathering, or attempting to trade a pig for a cell phone…
-XT
He got the label before he ran for President based on his voting record.
Yes, also he spends too much on roads & bridges at the expense of pavement’s ability to regenerate. :rolleyes:
Your chronology is totally inaccurate here. The National Journal issued their rating of Obama as 2007’s most liberal senator on January 31, 2008, at which time he had been running for President for nearly a year.
Moreover, as we discussed in this October 2008 thread, the National Journal “most liberal” rankings fluctuate all over the place from one year to another, apparently depending on little besides which particular Democrat is running for a major office.
For example, they ranked candidate Obama “most liberal” for 2007, and VP-candidate Biden third most liberal, whereas Obama had been ranked 10th most liberal for 2006 and 16th most liberal for 2005, while Biden was 19th most liberal for 2006. Similar effects were seen for Hillary Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards during their major races.
Did Obama’s political beliefs suddenly get 30% more liberal between 2005 and 2007? Did Biden’s get about 35% more liberal in one short year? I doubt it. Basically, the National Journal “most liberal” rankings are a partisan joke.
With those ears? He’d look ridiculous.
Obama is certainly one of the most “progressive” presidents, in the sense that he came into office with a huge list of things to accomplish (see Politifact for the list).
But “liberal”? More liberal than Carter, who put solar panels on the White House roof and ‘gave back’ the Panama Canal? More liberal than LBJ and his War on Poverty and civil rights legislation, or than Kennedy with the Alliance for Progress and the Peace Corps? More liberal than FDR and his New Deal? Hell, more liberal than Teddy Roosevelt, who proposed the first real environmental regulation and broke up the corporate monopolies? I don’t think so.
So, did he get more liberal after 2004 when John Kerry was “the most liberal senator”? Do you really have any doubt at all that had Hillary Clinton gotten the nomination that she’d have been “the most liberal senator”?
Just because it makes you feel better about demonizing the other side doesn’t mean it’s true.
-Joe