No other POTUS in history has spent so much money to keep his records sealed. I don't know about the rest of you, but I find that quite intriguing. Of the thousands of words on the subject, the term "natural born citizen" has a distinction different than "citizen". I am unconvinced they are the same as others have said. However, no court would rule against the electorate. Of course, surprisingly the SCOTUS did rule in Bush's favor in FLA.

(08-08-2011 10:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So advocating lower top marginal tax rates than Ronald Reagan is socialism? If that makes Obama a socialist, then does that make Reagan a communist? Obama is certainly to the right of LBJ. And probably to the right of Nixon.
There are no blue dogs left. Ok. Heath Shuler. But that's about it.

Number one, he doesn't advocate lower top marginal rates than Reagan (and liberal democrat Bill Bradley) in 1986. He does advocate nominally lower rates than Reagan's first tax cut in 1981, but Reagan was cutting rates majorly to get there as a transition to 1986, while Obama would raise the rates that he inherited to get to his target.

Number two, while Reagan was lowering rates, he was also broadening the definition of taxable income (removing loopholes, in modern terminology). That means that comparisons to Reagan's 1981 rates are apples to oranges. Obama would keep essentially the same definitions of taxable income that have existed since the 1986 act, so that is the only apples to apples comparison among those you suggest, and Obama clearly supports higher rates than anyone else has advocated be applied to those definitions of income.

Number three, the relevant comparison is to other countries, not other eras. I can move my business from Ohio to Poland; I can't move my business from Ohio to 1981. Obama is one of two--and only two--US presidents who have advocated top marginal rates higher than the rest--or most of the rest--of the developed world. The other? George W. Bush. So to put the comparisons you would make into perspective, Obama is advocating higher top marginal rates than socialist Europe, so I guess that in response to your question, that would make him a socialist.

He is advocating the most ambitious income redistribution scheme in US history. Is that socialist? Yes.
He is advocating a government takeover of health care (single-payer), to be accomplished in stages, the first stage of which is a massive (and massively expensive) increase in the level of government regulation of health insurance, and, yes, health care itself. Is that socialist?
He is advocating much greater government regulation of, and participation in, the financial services industry than any of his predecessors. Is that socialist? Yes.
He has presided over taking equity stakes in the automobile and financial services industries. Is that socialist? Was it socialist when Shrub started it? Actually, this one is probably technically more fascist than socialist.

As for the blue dogs, after 2010 they probably are down to about Shuler. Which is unfortunate. We'd be far better off if they were the dominant power. But the reference was to legislation in the 2009-10 congress, and in those days the blue dogs were 1) more numerous and 2) powerful beyond their numbers because of their swing vote status.

Forget all the racial stuff, the Muslim stuff, and the birther stuff. As Owl69 noted, the left keeps using those issues to divert from the REAL issue: COTUS was in office when the United States of America was downgraded for the FIRST TIME IN ITS HISTORY. THAT is COTUS' legacy. THAT is what he will be remembered for. End of story.

This sorry excuse of a leader, this "man" who steadfastly avoids conflict and confrontations at every turn, this individual who has trouble dealing with people inside the beltway; this "communicator" who excels simply at reading prepared speeches off a teleprompter is simply IN OVER HIS HEAD. Everyone knows this, but are extremely reluctant to say it out loud in public. This CEO does it. Of course, I'm sure the far left zealots on their knees for Lord O will label her with the dreaded RACIST tag.

The Presidency is not a position to have OJT. This community organizer works best BEHIND THE SCENES. It is what he has done most of his adult life. He theorizes and plans things but always has others doing the bulk of the work while he slides into the shadows; out of sight. He would rather appease opponents; be overtly concillatory. Didn't COTUS vote "present" on about 130 + bills in the Illinois state senate? He rarely took a stand on an issue. He is not used to sticking his neck out and holding anyone - especially HIMSELF - accountable. Obama comes across as indecisive, flighty, and a touch arrogant, as if most people do not possess the mental capacity to think at his Columbia/Harvard level and he doesn't have the time to frame his cutting edge societal thoughts into language us "commoners" can grasp.

The bottom line is simple. The President of the USA cannot be seen as weak, ineffective, and a poor leader. EVER. Obama is all three of those things.