Bill Kristol: Obama Is A "Born-Again Neo-Con"

Link



Ever imagine you would hear Ed Schultz, Barack Obama, and Bill Kristol all agree on the same thing? How come it does not surprise me? Well at least we got the facts straight from the horse’s mouth, Obama is a “Born-again NeoCon”, and Kristol basically agreed that this is a third term of George W. Bush.

How many people want to call me crazy now for telling you over and over again day in and day out that Neoconservatives come from the Liberal left? Globalism, interventionism, statism, and internationalism are all center-left ideologies from the Old Left of Roosevelt-Truman-Johnson, these people are ardent leftists. Obama may have talked a big game while running for President, pretending to be a New Left Liberal but he is nothing more than a statist hawk like Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr., even to an extent Reagan.

No Democratic wars, no Republican wars, no Conservative wars, no Liberal wars, no Socialist wars, no Religious wars, just no more wars where our liberty and sovereignty is not directly threatened. I know… I know that such a policy is not good for those who manipulate our currency and control our government. I know war is good for profit. I know you salivate at the thought of sending more young American men and women to fight your wars so you can sit up and say, “Give war a chance”.

Imagine what else happened, Obama met with Kristol to discuss this Libyan invasion, how nice. He also met with the UN and talked to foreign nations but did not ask for a formal vote by the Congress hell he didn’t even talk to the Congress about this, the legitimate government of the United States was kept out of the discussion of a military intervention, but talking to Cameron and Sarkozy was so much more important and so was consulting the UN, you know the real governing body of the United States.

A rat, a rat, I smell a rat,
Who voted in that lying rat?
People moaning about a foreign war,
Voted in our beloved Fuhrer,
Breaking promises and causing death,
Dare I mention his endless debt?

So, basically you believe that American government is leftist?

You are ignoring the fact that the corporatists own BOTH sides. Its not like "the left" is ruining America while Republicans are somehow trying to return us to some former glory.

BOTH SIDES are responsible for this...its hilarious that you claim that neocons are "leftists".

If you are so far to the right, that neocons seem left.....

Originally posted by Misoir
Globalism, interventionism, statism, and internationalism are all center-left ideologies from the Old Left of Roosevelt-Truman-Johnson, these people are ardent leftists. Obama may have talked a big game while running for President, pretending to be a New Left Liberal but he is nothing more than a statist hawk like Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr., even to an extent Reagan.

So, please name an American president that you think has never been a Globalist, a statist, or internationalist. Pretty much the first thing we did after George Washington warned us was to ignore him.

reply to post by Misoir


Yes it has been over half a term. He has had plenty of time to get us the heck out of those costly wars.

So what has he done?? Push a food bill that will wipe out American farmers and the Obamacare bill with the hidden 1099 tax code change that EVERY small business is cursing.

But WAIT-----

He had done something for the economy:

....as head of the National Economic Council, Obama brought in Gene Sperling, who held the same position in the Clinton administration. [For] Chief of Staf, William Daley, a former Clinton administration official and banker. And to top it off, General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt was tapped to lead a newly created Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

..... Sperling worked behind the scenes to secure the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement.


.... Sperling moved up to take over the NEC, he was working on China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, an event which caused millions of manufacturing jobs in U.S. to be permanently lost.

Sperling also played a major role in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial and investment banking. Many observers credit the act’s repeal with causing the financial crisis that brought the economy to its knees.

Daley too was instrumental in the passage of NAFTA and China’s entry into the WTO. During the debate over NAFTA, he served as a special council to the president. His only responsibility during that time was ensuring that the trade deal passed.

After delivering the trade pact that cost America 20 percent of its manufacturing jobs in just 14 years, Daley moved on to serve as Clinton’s Commerce Secretary from 1997-2000. During that time, he helped pave the way for China’s entry into the WTO.

Daley’s work in the Clinton administration earned him a reputation as someone who is ''squarely on the opposite side of working families.'' At least that’s what labor leaders said about him as he left the Clinton administration to run Al Gore’s failed presidential campaign.....

“You would have difficulty finding a company that has outsourced more jobs and closed more American factories than GE,” ... “While they have slashed their American workforce to fewer than 150,000, GE has dramatically expanded its global presence, now employing over 300,000 workers worldwide.”

... Immelt was a vocal supporter for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. He also spoke out against the proposed “buy American” provision.

Immelt, Daley and Sperling certainly do not represent the “change” the president was fond of referring to in 2008. In fact, all three represent more of the same - failed trade policies that result in the loss of millions of jobs.
www.economyincrisis.org...

I hope we make it to 2012 with a country intact

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Well here is a radical idea, maybe try reading up a bit about where Neoconservatives actually come from and their history? Could you describe to me who the intellectual heirs were to modern Neoconservatism? And I do not mean George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan I mean back in the 1930s to 1950s.

I am quite sure you can’t but you will continue to argue fact less arguments based on perceived notions of reality, ignore the fact that the mentors to the mentors of modern day Neocons were actually Trotskyites and members of the Socialist Party of America and the Democratic Party who supported the political aspirations of Henry “Scoop” Jackson and they only abandoned the Democrats and Socialists after the rise of the anti-war New Left and Johnson’s economic program.

Read this, educate yourself

Am I so far right that I see Neoconservatives as leftists? Well if they were not actually the Democrats of the early Cold War Period then there would be no reason to label them leftists now would there? Have you ever asked yourself why Neocons are more likely to quote all Republicans past Reagan rather than before him? Because the Republicans before Reagan do not fit the Neocon agenda except maybe Richard Nixon, but who would want to quote a known criminal?

I am Old Right, I oppose military interventionism that is not for the protection of our liberty and sovereignty, I oppose the New Deal and all big government legislation after that, I oppose the Federal Reserve and the wars, poverty, and hunger it creates, I oppose the government telling me what I can do in my own home, and I definitely oppose the anti-Western New Left Liberalism which hates everything about Western civilization and seeks its destruction even if that means allying itself with radical jihadists.

So if that makes me “Far-right” then I am damn proud to be it.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, and Calvin Coolidge.

Obama is slave of freemason and completing all their commands. doesnt he have own mind to decide the good and bad for this world? Mr obama think with yr mind, are you doing good to the people of earth or fulfilling the orders of certain group?

Obama is slave of freemason and completing all their commands. doesnt he have own mind to decide the good and bad for this world? Mr obama think with yr mind, are you doing good to the people of earth or fulfilling the orders of certain group?

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, and Calvin Coolidge.

So throughout all of history, we have had 6 presidents that werent globablists, according to you....

But Lincoln forced the South to bend to the Norths economic will, at the cost of war. Isnt that statism?
Jackson killed millions of indians through conquest.....but I guess that sort of statist imperialism is OK with you?
William Taft helped subjugate South America for American corporations, and used military might....but that isnt statism?

Harding pushed for the establishment of the Bureau of Veterans Affairs (later organized as the Department of Veterans Affairs), the first permanent attempt at answering the needs of those who had served the nation in time of war.[91] In April 1921, speaking before a special joint session of Congress which he had called, Harding argued for peacemaking with Germany and Austria, emergency tariffs, new immigration laws, regulation of radio and trans cable communications, retrenchment in government, tax reduction, repeal of wartime excess profits tax, reduction of railroad rates, promotion of agricultural interests, a national budget system, an enlarged merchant marine and a department of public welfare.

Boy Warren G Harding almost sounds like a liberal doesnt he?
A dept of public welfare?? from one of the men Misoir thinks as a great conservative president?

Who is the one who should be studying history?

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
So throughout all of history, we have had 6 presidents that werent globablists, according to you....

But Lincoln forced the South to bend to the Norths economic will, at the cost of war. Isnt that statism?

Lincoln was fighting the South because the European powers sought to instigate a division in this country because they were opposed to Lincoln’s currency ideas, they did not appease the Central Bankers so Britain and France stopped buying American cotton which angered the South. Lincoln knew exactly what was happening and he responded properly. He had the right to keep the Union together at all costs.

Jackson killed millions of indians through conquest.....but I guess that sort of statist imperialism is OK with you?

He sought Indian removal and the policies which occurred under his administration were initially enacted in the administration and congress before him, he simply carried out his responsibilities.

William Taft helped subjugate South America for American corporations, and used military might....but that isnt statism?

Well that I did not know so I will give you that fact.

However the 6 names that I did give, 5 of them were not globalists, imperialists, or statists. And this is not to say there are not 10 other Presidents who were not globalists, imperialists, or statists, I am just not educated enough on every US President to make that decision. I only listed the Presidents I had knowledge of, arguably Taft was the least of those listed I have read about.

Personally however I identify strictly with the policies of the 2 Presidents Harding and Coolidge, specifically Coolidge, along with the Republicans of the interwar period between WW1 and WW2. Another good President IMO was Grover Cleveland, I however do not know what his foreign policy was.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Maybe you ought to have a better understanding of Conservatism at that time. Conservatives were not opposed to new government programs or offices, they were not opposed to even pensions and some aid to poor areas, you are confusing Old Right conservatism with a radical form of supply-side economics.

The Republicans of the era fought to defend pensions for the elderly, they fought to defend the civil rights of women, they fought to defend the freedom of Speech for Socialist Eugene V. Debs, they fought against the KKK, and they fought many great fights in favor of modernization. Too many people today confuse the Conservatism of the old right with radical Reagenomics.

They, like myself, however believed that these benefits to individuals and families should be minimal and operate at the lowest level possible. They would never have supported the bloated statist and bureaucratic system of Social Security because it was too large, too centralized, and too extensive.

Try reading about what old Republican values of the inter war period used to be before you go running your mouth, using government occasionally to help the general welfare of society was not a crime at the time in that party. But they would never have endorsed any of the New Deal legislation.

upload.wikimedia.org...

Originally posted by Misoir
Too many people today confuse the Conservatism of the old right with radical Reagenomics.

Whose fault is that? Why do most Conservatives refer to Reagan as one of the greatest presidents?

Originally posted by Misoir
Try reading about what old Republican values of the inter war period used to be before you go running your mouth, using government occasionally to help the general welfare of society was not a crime at the time in that party.

So what happened? Why is it that way today? All I hear from "conservatives" is "END ALL ENTITLEMENTS!" So if it "wasnt a crime at the time in the party", then what heppened? Why the difference in opinion today?

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Reagan is not one of my favorite President’s that is for sure, I don’t like the guy he believed government was the problem of everything. I disagree, government is not a problem but it also should not be so large, it has a limited role to play and it can play that limited role well (sometimes).

I do agree with ending all entitlements, as they presently are today. I don’t agree with Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, or any of those government programs. They are too large and extensive but only at the federal level. I have no problem with states being as socialist as they want to be, good have universal healthcare, social security, etc… I don’t have a problem with that at all. Calvin Coolidge, the man who limited federal government to its smallest role in the 20th century was an activist governor who reduced women and child work hours, helped veterans, and gave other state government assistance to people.

Our biggest contention, all those of the old-right, is that the federal government should not be in the business of administering all of these programs. Most Republicans as governor’s fought for reforms and government intervention to help, not to the level it is at today though, but they were not afraid to use government for good.

Why are Conservatives of today so much different than the old-right conservatives? Look who runs the party, the lunatic Southern conservatives, they don’t even want local government interfering in anything. I disagree with them, states can intervene and help but the federal government should play a limited role.

On the state level I would vote for better pensions for the elderly, more universal health care, and limiting the work hours, but I do not believe the federal government should be in that business.

reply to post by Misoir


Your analysis, while erudite, is nonetheless too rigid in my opinion. Political lines have always changed and converged in history at times where one might have ex-progressive liberals turning into neo-conservatives or conservatives of some type; or visa-versa, a conservative going the other way and adapting some form of progressive liberalism.
Also there will be at times a convergence of political ideologues who may agree on an issue such as today’s agreement of the liberal firebrand Dennis Kucinich and the conservative libertarian Ron Paul on the fed

I don’t think liberalism is some kind of progenitor to present neo-con political thinking. Certainly many old communist type progressives raised in the dogmatism of paternal left politics have adapted a authoritarian approach [Troskyism] but certainly not all Liberal progressives have followed that path.

On a traditional political level there has always been a liberal strain of militarism exemplified by the Senator from Washington, Henry Jackson, and others like him within the specter of democratic and liberal ideology, which resembles modern neocons. Merely because some of these people had liberal domestic views I think is incidental to their neo-con stripes. People do change and ideologies do cross paths in agreement occasionally.

Therefore because of their neo-con views on international issues and their moderate ideas on domestic issues, though they are democrats, I don’t think they can be classified as traditional liberal or progressive.

As for the source of today's neocons? Many believe that modern neocons political ideology is traced to the ideas of Leo Straus, the political science professor from Chicago University. www.counterpunch.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
Many of today’s neocons were students of his and adapted a Machiavellian outlook regarding international affairs of the American empire towards the third world. This intersected primarily with traditional conservative ideology and found a home amongst them as their Western chauvinism is so similar.

The traditional conservative Pat Buchannan types do disagree with the neocons on some foreign policy and globalist issues, but also have significant areas of agreement along the conservative matrix of issues, such as domestic issues like integration and affirmative action as well in traditional conservative economic dogma.

There are differences in the conservative world that you indicate accurately in your post but I think it would serve you better to consider a less rigid posture on where the true etiology of these strains of conservativism come from.

As for Obama, I think he is a weak person who lacks any real core beliefs that he is
willing to fight for, beyond what is politically useful to him. So any resemblance to
neocons are only a self-serving gesture of his and another indication of his moral
weakness.

I feel like Obama is 'W' continued on, for a third term. I had stars in my eyes for The Change That We Can Believe In ( a populist hope ) Then the very first things he does, is appoint questionable financial guys into his top finance positions, and bail out Big Banksters.
Everytime I look at the President, I think of that movie Manchurian Candidate. It's like something diabolical gets ahold of them. Could be why their hair turns white. Then awhile after they've been out, I observe them closely when I can, and it -appears- -to me- anyway, that they are back to normal, or moreso, to being human.
Could this somehow be related? Woodrow Wilson said, "Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it".
He then proceeded to exhort of the trials for the small innovative man versus crushing monopoly. But it just doesn't string together right, in my view.
So therefore,....What on earth? ...... or maybe NOT on earth?