Obama: liberal frustration, conservative satisfaction
Who would have thought that, a mere month after the election of Barack Obama as our next President, it would be the liberals who’d be frustrated and the conservatives who’d have slight and catlike smiles on their faces?
Certainly not me. Right after the election, when I suggested to my fellow disappointed McCain voters that they give Obama a chance before becoming too gloomy or angry, I hardly envisioned that over the Thanksgiving holiday when relatives would ask me how I was feeling about Obama my answer would be, “Probably better than you are right now.” And yet that’s what has happened.
I’m not saying conservatives are overjoyed with the man. Nor am I. Plus, with Obama, the caveat is that his positions today have no real relation to his positions tomorrow—as we noticed during the election, but as liberals are just now beginning to learn. The man is a quick-change chameleon. But so far, his appointments have been far better than I feared, and better than I had any reason to hope for, considering his past and his campaign promises.
Most liberals feel differently. The only question for most seems to be whether it’s time to criticize him yet, since he’s not even taken office:
OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn’t there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”
Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.
Good luck with learning what Obama’s “basic promises” actually were. As I recall, the main one was change. I suppose on that score, those liberals who see his Cabinet as Clinton-lite or even Bush-lite are already bitterly disappointed. As the headline of David Corn’s piece in yesterday’s WaPo complained, “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Envisioned.”
No, it wasn’t, and I for one am glad. But a promise of “change” that was so vaguely definied—and seems, so far, to be limited to having a President with smoother rhetoric and darker skin than his predecessor—was always, as Obama himself so clearly wrote, bound to disappoint “some, if not all” of the supporters he encouraged to project so many disparate hopes onto him.
My only big complaints with Obama are, indeed, that his politics are utterly meaningless and shift as convenient. He’s utterly unpredictable because public opinion is. I’m still worried about some of his calls for econmic ideas, which are ridiculous.
neo,
A relevant and funny video
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/12/07/obama-to-hillary-i-look-forward-to-you-advising-me.php
I’m looking forward to your future post: “Well, Obama Bamboozled Me.”
Please recall that early in the campaign, Obama noted, “There will be bamboozling.”
Except for Eric Holder, whom I have serious misgivings about considering what he was involved in under the Clinton regime, the rest seem to be democrat beaurocrats simply reassuming their former roles.
So I can manage a weak laugh at the expense of the left over that one – the *smart* ones were suckered, even while us *dummies* were telling them they were being suckered and they refused to believe us.
While I have issues with the Clinton era, economically it seemed to work since he simply kept the policies of HIS predecessor and inherited an economy coming strongly out of a recession.
What does concern me most, however, is that at some point The Chosen One is gonna have to shore up his leftist base, and lacking funds for big government programs and lacking absolute complete democrat control that would allow for huge government overhauls (though I expect the RINO’s to do their level best!) – the only thing left for him to toss to the left are social agenda items on things such as abortion, gun control, and similar social engineering experiments.
At that point, the bovine scatalogical material will impact the oscillating rotating device and ain’t nobody gonna be happy….
OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn’t there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”
NO!
We neocons secretly control the agenda. You liberals have been fooled. We control the vertical. We control the horizontal. We control the content.
Now bow before your masters, you trolls!
It’s much too early to be analyzing his picks.He’s a master chameleon who shows everyone a bit of what they hope to see.
Jimmy Carter pretended to be a good conservative southern Democrat at first, but that didn’t last long.
One thing is clear, and one only: Obama is a cipher, an enigma, an onion of infinite layers, left and right, red and blue, a maze where we want a single position, a consumate politician and a perfect parliamentarian of the sort who comes along maybe once in a century, and that once, once too often. An electorate to him is as silence to a musician: a thing to be filled with his inspiration, until nothing shines that does not flow from him.
This does not say whether he will govern well or ill, but I would not have made the bet. The thing that gives me hope is that he wants a second term, and he knows he must not make a total fool of himself. What will happen when the Mullahs dis him I do not know; my hope is that a Chicago politician will have more than one way to handle it.
Where my hope will lie if he gets the second term I do not know.
If the leftists are disappointed, it’s because they projected their desires on Obama in exactly the same way they projected their frustration and anger on Bush. And make no mistake: like the Radical Republicans following the Civil War, these people aren’t interested in uniting the country and healing its wounds – they want revenge. They’ve watched helplessly for eight years as the Bush administration “ruined” their country. Now, as payback, they want hard-left policies shoved triumphantly down conservatives’ throats. If Obama fails to provide them with the desired political bloodletting – perhaps because he needs a broader coalition in order to govern, or because an American President can only do so much – they will never forgive him. In that case, we’ll hear in 2012 how Obama’s presidency was just a third Bush term. Then the poor old Democrat party will have to endure another pummelling at the hands of the moonbats.
Or who knows – maybe they’ll summon up enough courage to declare themselves the Democratic Socialist Party and run candidates under that label.
Everyone on the left and the right are trying to decipher his real plan like the old Kremlinologists used to do. After his “light bulb” stimulus offering over the weekend, I’m increasingly thinking he has no clue what to do. (See Ann Althouse’s great critique).
Bigger strategic and organizational thinking is something you have to gain by experience, and that’s something Obama doesn’t have. What he does have experience in is picking associates to lift his career. The left has served it’s purpose, and soon the evironmentalists will be left behind in the recession. Labor will be the big mover behind his next moves.
Please recall that early in the campaign, Obama noted, “There will be bamboozling.”
The changey thing brings it now to “Obamboozling”, no doubt African for “bait and switch”. I’m enriched already, snif.
I agree with you 100%, neo, and also with the many perspicacious comments above.
I’d half expected Kucinich or Cindy Sheehan as SecDef, and was stunned and delighted to see Gates kept on.
Obama clearly was conning someone, although it was unclear whom. It looked like it was the electorate (the obvious choice), but now it appears as though it may just have been the leftists. We’re not out of the woods yet, but things look a lot better than they did on November 5th. So I’m feeling some “hope” now too.
And to second njcommuter’s views, I think of Obama as a political hologram. It looks as though there’s something there, but then you can wave your hand through the space and hit nothing. I’d feel a lot better about Obama if I thought we had any idea who he really is, what his values (pace Bogey Man), so we could anticipate his future course of action.
The funny part is that we conservatives have been saying this all along, to the scorn of the lefties, but now the lefties have been burned, at least on the appointments issue, by their own gullibility and capacity for self-delusion. If you listen carefully, you can hear God chuckling…
Who would have thought, indeed.
I’ll tell you who. Myself, for one.
And how about those magic mind-benders at the “liberal” media.
They’ve been telling you all along that Obama’s a pragmatist, new-breed problem solver.
But the conservative blogosphere insisted that was “moonbat” propaganda. You all insisted Obama was a secret Marxist “Muslim” with some sort of diabolical plan to soil the country beyond repair.
Really.
Go back and read the posts here predicting all manner of outrage and misfortune born of radical leftism. And we get Gates and Geithner. Is no one here prepared to admit just how wrong they were? Or, certainly, how right the sorcerers at the mainstream media were?
Nope, onto the next morsel of fear and loathing.
Now it’s Obama, the scary shape shifter.
Chameleon?
You want changing colors, how about the almost weekly shift in themes for attacking Obama.
One day, he’s a scary academic ideologue.
The next, a shifty Chicago backroom pol.
Then, he’s an overeducated elitist.
The next, an ignoramus.
Then he’s a secret Muslim.
But really a radical left-wing Christian.
Sure, Obama’s has a fluid approach. Especially relative to the rigid ideologues who just brought on the Second Great Depression and two unwon wars. But that fluid approach is EXACTLY what he said he would have and exactly why people voted for him.
Neoneo takes some reasonable delight in the disappointment of establishment liberals at Obama’s snubbing them and that’s fair enough. But they too shouldn’t really be surprised. Remember the Obama’s comments praising Reagan?
The real chameleons are Obama’s conservative critics.
Well then, as I was typing, OB weighs in with a mea culpa, albeit one disguised as more paranoia.
Bravo!
How does it feel, OB, to be taken for a ride?
“I’d half expected Kucinich or Cindy Sheehan as SecDef, and was stunned and delighted to see Gates kept on.”
And who was the driver on that hallucinogenic detour? We kept trying to tell you Obama isn’t a radical leftist, but you kept dropping ideological acid and seeing colors.
“Obama clearly was conning someone, although it was unclear whom.”
Classic.
Now that Obama turns out to be exactly what he said he would be, OB feels “conned.”
i am only frustrated that this means that no one knew what they were electing… and still doesnt.
In reply to Bogey Man, I for one am a conservative/libertarian who is happy to be somewhat wrong on Obama. How wrong I actually was is not yet known. We shall see as they say.
However my take on the MSM projections onto Obama is that they were hoping and praying for a left-wing transformer especially with regard to Iraq, the general WOT, health care, and economic social justice (windfall profits, progressive taxes, etc). There may have been some attempts to portray him as a pragmatist to placate the independents so that he could get elected. But I don’t really trust that as anything more than good politicking.
I’m also quite sure that Obama himself played into the leftwing image to win in the Democratic primaries. The moderate/conservative he seemed to have morphed himself into on many traditional Republican issues during the general election notwithstanding, there certainly was much about the man and his image that would have made conservatives very nervous. Not all of that was imagined.
…I must say, as a conservative, I have problems with his appointees. Hilary Clinton, someone with little foreign policy experience. Timothy Geithner, by beging President of the NY Fed Reserve, is one of the major guilty parties for this credit crunch. Dr. Gates is great, but I have a feeling he’ll come back to bite Obama in the butt. Eric Holder is in fact the person(other than Dr. Gates) I have the least problem with.
So, I must say, I am not jumping for joy about Obama, but I hope he does do well…however, from here he seems just like more of the same.
Of course, there’s also the possibility that somebody somewhere has such a hold of some sort on The Chosen One, or something devastating held over his haloed head, that he HAS to do as he’s told – and let’s face it, the democrats are not gonna lose the White House over the actions of an inexperienced politician.
Of course, if that’s the case, who’s pulling the strings? Hmmmm, perhaps the nature of some of his *appointments* could shed light on the matter….
As a liberal, I’m delighted to see that Obama understands that only gradual change lasts. It’s evolution, not revolution.
He’s building a machine for running the government competently, sans ideology.
Of course, for some, belief in competence is itself an “elitist” assault on conservative mysticism — the magic hand, God, gut feelings and all that.
Any sea changes in ideology, Obama correctly understands, will come from the ground up, outside the workings of government.
The Bushists biggest mistake was to assume they could impose ideological solutions from within the government. That never works, even when “we’re at war.”
Bogey Man, I’ll start by saying that I’m glad that I hope that I’m wrong about Obama and it looks good so far. I’ll also agree that an intelligent approach should be taken towards issues to include altering course when the situation evolves.
Having said that, it appears that the only factors that have evolved in Mr Obama’s stances are Mr Obama’s comprehension of the issues. Most conservatives thought that his views toward Iraq/Afghanistan and taxes were a bit “pie in the sky” while he was running for office and it appears to be confirmed in his recent shifts. It’s not like anything has changed in the terror or economic front enough to warrant a shift in policy.
Seeing that the shift in policy is now more inline with my own, you won’t hear me complaining.
Obama Fakes Right… Goes Left… Jump Shot… Being left-handed makes this move a natural:
Four and out. The left is not known for their tolerance of anything, but particularly not Lieberman-esque ‘traitors’.
Shorter Vanderleun:
He shoots, he SCORES!!
Bogey Man,
“Any sea changes in ideology, Obama correctly understands, will come from the ground up, outside the workings of government.”
Uhhm, guess that explains all of the former Clinton insiders being appointed by The One to run *His* administration….good help must truely be hard to find.
Liberals voice concerns about Obama
All is not lost for them, however. They still have those two magic beans, “hope” and “change.”
I agree with Jeff an P-Dub – it would be great if all the conservative doom-saying about Obama turned out to be excessive and premature. .
As for the disgruntled far left – screw ’em. Being useful idiots is what they’re best at.
Conservatives’ elation over Obama’s centrist picks are a bit premature. First, Eric Holder, part of the original Clinton/Reno/Gorelick “wall” which prevented the Government from sharing information is in one of the most critical positions for pursuing terrorists, et. al. dangerous people. He thought nothing of promoting the pardons of Puerto Rican terrorists or the traitorous Mark Rich for political purposes.
Second, Conservatives are overlooking the fact that a master politician like Obama knows that he can put a moderate face on his administration while appointing thousands of careerists to State, Education, EPA, and other branches of government who really steer the direction of the country, even long after he has moved on. He will bring his entire radical left wing agenda into play “sotto marine.”
Yes, Scottie, that is my point.
Sammi: I agree that Obama can still do lots of damage. My point was that, at least up till now, he is doing considerably better than anticipated as far as conservatives are concerned, and worse as far as liberals are concerned. I consider him so changeable that what he does today does not necessarily relate to what he will do tomorrow, however. Nor does what he does in one arena translate to what he will do in another.
Neocon,
Thank you for your response. Forgive me. I wasn’t really referring to your particular comments, just Conservatives in general and the overwhelming gag me media narrative that Obama is the new Lincoln–“No Ordinary Time”, etc., etc.
I too, am somewhat relieved that he has been so reasonable in his high profile Cabinet appointments. My point was just that as we have seen during the Bush Administration, the permanent, mostly liberal, shadow careerists in State and other departments wield enormous power.
Obama is a manifestation of the outcome inescapable after forty years of post-Spock child rearing and public education.
He fell into the job because the other contestants couldn’t get it together long enough to vote him off the island.
And now we all pay. These are not times in which we have the luxury of a wasted presidency. There is no gold in the treasury and the great works of the Ayers and Naders of the world has borne a bumper crop.
There’s motive for an excruciatingly high body count here, just in case nobody has noticed. The world pivots on us, last week as baby sitter, yesterday as economic benchmark, and today as pitiful example of empire gone to seed.
Barak Obama. History has a message for you, and you aren’t going to like it.
Bogey:
I think what bothers a lot of us is simply how blatant Obama has been with his lies. He lied to get the nomination, he lied to get elected, and now he’s basically admitting he lied — and nobody’s calling him on it!
Pulling out of Iraq — he’s not doing that, he lied! I’m glad it turns out he lied, but how come you and all the other people who voted for him because of that promise aren’t furious?
Shutting down all the scary terrorist-hunting intel programs — he’s not going to shut them down. He lied! Again, I’m glad, but how come you and all the others who voted for him because of that promise aren’t furious?
Ultimately, I guess what bugs me is that you and the rest of the Left flocked to Obama because of his promises, and now that he’s admitting he lied to you, you’re still fawning over him. That leaves us conservatives looking at you and shaking our heads, wondering — are you stupid?
He is not yet POTUS, and the new Congress isn’t in either. We have no data whatsoever on the deals he has made. Surmises are iffy things, not conclusions.
That he intends to vigorously replay the FDR approach, and that central economic control is being established in likely perpetuity by the present and future admins should make us all quake.
I think Obama needs to be given a chance to take office and be President for awhile before assessing his administration. He could do anything. I think he could defy the far left and still keep the moderate Democrats who voted for him. That’s all he needs in the next election because if the Kos folks are angry at Obama four years down the road it could only mean that a bunch of McCain voters, maybe including myself, would be happy with Obama. I sincerely hope when that time comes that the far left is very, very unhappy.
My litmus will be his foreign policy. Hillary Clinton at State doesn’t bother me at all. She voted to depose Saddam, after all. Jones is a Marine. Most of them are not as screwed up as Murtha. He should be smart enough to realize that Bush has given him a birthday gift in Iraq. All he has to do is keep his boss from messing it up.
grackle,
I’d give him some slack if his track record wasn’t non existent where it wasn’t communist.
I have already saved a ton of time by stopping paying attention to the politicians; if history rears its head 2010 may see us vote in our first congress filled with actual cartoon characters and internet write-in candidates.
Both parties are bankrupt. Not money, but bankrupt of ethic, vision, or integrity. And Obama floated to the top.
I’m concentrating on buying food, eliminating debt, and picking up the odd bit of arsenal supplies. Not banking any currency; seven trillion dollars in fiat money is going to bounce back hard and probably before the Office Of The President Elect even gets to stop play acting at being an office holder.
We dont’ have a ship of fools here. It’s more like the Titanic.
Obama has no moral or ethical restrictions. What this tends to mean that he can appease conservatives, yes, but it also means he can drop a nuke on a civilian target. They are two sides of the same thing for those with no ethical standard.
See, it doesn’t matter what he does because there is no right and no wrong for people like Obama. There is only power.
and nobody’s calling him on it!
People, especially Democrats, love being lied to. It was George Bush’s attempt to tell the truth about WMDs after 2003, instead of successfully covering it up and making America feel better about Iraq, that upset the Dems and motivated them into the active attack phase of their campaign.
Shorter Vanderleun:
He shoots, he SCORES!!
Bogey is the perfect example of what I am talking about here.
Bogey Man Says:
“Go back and read the posts here predicting all manner of outrage and misfortune born of radical leftism. And we get Gates and Geithner. Is no one here prepared to admit just how wrong they were?”
I’m ready to admit I might have been wrong. 🙂
He has to actually follow through with this moderatation stuff.
But, I’m ready to lay off if he does.
Personally I’m not impressed at all with Obama’s appointments, ie. Rice (of Rwanda and Osama B.L. fame), Holder (FALN and Rich fame), and the Arizona governor (of Homeland Security fame). Was everyone expecting him to nominate Ayers for Sec of Health, Education and Welfare right off the bat? Hillary and Gates (himself an advocate, I’ve read, if it’s true, along with Emmanuel, of an additional and enhanced independent domestic security force), can be easily dismissed or resigned in not so long… It’s very, very naive to think that this character who was born and bred of muslim socialist kin, spent the last thirty years actively in that milieu, and rose politically through and because of it, has suddenly morphed into some (disloyal) centrist. Don’t forget for a moment the blatant campaign finance and Acorn voter resgistration fraud. Regardless of the status of the Supreme Court on the birth certificate issues, he has in fact not released any of that information voluntarily, instead opting for hiring several law firms and spending a small fortune to continue stonewalling. Does anyone really think he’s trying to keep us from seeing a few bad grades? More likely he is biding his time, building his image and power base, and preparing the scene for his next stage of operations. Remember, these people are not Russian or Chinese communists per se, but an Americanized version sharing similar goals, but in the context of a distinctly American cultural context; If that’s any consolation before we’re transformed into a socialist police state, under a U.N. “green” revolution. This is a man who did everything possible to undermine the war in Iraq, strategically critical for so many reasons, but who is now eager to engage America in the several hundred million strong muslim blackhole that is Afghanistan-Pakistan. Remember, the only international travel Obama experienced, prior to this campaign, was his childhood in a muslim country, and an illegal college years trip to Pakistan. Personally, I’m just becoming more skeptical, and thinking about the women and children who were burned to death in that church in Kenya, along with the other victims of Obama’s cousin Odinga and their fellow countrymen, when the election didn’t go his way. Now he’s Prime Minister of Kenya. The whole thing is an outrage…
You know, I’ve said this many times before — what has struck me the most in the time I’ve spent posting on Neo’s blog comments section is the fact that most of you here seem to have an extremely distorted view of what most liberals believe, a view that included Obama himself. I’ve been trying to tell you that Obama is a pragmatist, he’s smart, he’s post-partisan and he’s a centrist (while still espousing and promoting some very progressive views), and most of you kept up with excessive fear of Obama and what he stands for.
I really think the word “liberal”, also, is being used quite inaccurately both by commenters here and even by Neo, above. It is not liberals, for the most part, disappointed in Obama — it is leftists, or at least very left-wing liberals. I am a liberal, and I am extremely impressed and not at all surprised or disappointed with Obama’s Cabinet picks. You might note that before Obama picked Gates to stay on at defense I advocated it and predicted that he probably would do so (yes, here in Neo’s comments section). Yet another one of my correct predictions (yes, I know, someday you guys are going to finally acknowledge my prognostication abilities).
I even said I thought Obama should pick Hillary for State, many months ago, and had to laugh when all the pundits were shocked when he did so. In fact, Obama said he’d been thinking of Hillary for State for months, as well. Great minds …
Should the moderation of Obama’s appointments be a surprise? Not at all! This is what he’s been campaigning on this ENTIRE time. He’s been saying we need to get beyond red state vs blue state, beyond Republican vs Democrat, etc. If leftists or left-wing liberals didn’t listen to him clearly say these things then they were fooling themselves.
But did Obama bring change? He sure as hell did. He brings an atmosphere of competence, intelligence, deliberation, and, yes, experience to the White House. Yes, he himself is young, but he is smart enough to know that the best way to get the best decisions isn’t to surround yourself with yes men, but to surround yourself with strong, intelligent people with strong views. This is, I have to say, a huge change from the Bush Administration, whose “heckuva job Brownie” exemplified cronyism and incompetence. So of course Gates stays at Defense: he was and is exceptionally competent, even though a Republican, and that’s the sort of people we need to help move the country forward.
The fact is, mainstream liberals are NOT disappointed with Obama, but that’s because mainstream liberals are not closet Stalinists as many of you seemed to think. Noam Chomsky does not represent the Democratic Party — as he himself would tell you if you really paid attention to what he says.
But Obama is better than a mere centrist — he’s what I call a radical centrist — a guy who has strong views, they just don’t happen to always be from the right or always from the left. Some of his views are very progressive — some are moderate — some are downright conservative. But he’s got strong arguments for his views and he’s willing to listen to the contrary points of view. That’s change I can believe in.
I’m not sure why Obama’s thought to be cipher. Well, no more than predicting anyone’s next move with absolute certainty.
I think I posted this before here (because someone was huffing and puffing about the Iraq part at the end of this piece)
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4d40a39e-8f57-4054-bd99-94bc9d19be1a
That was from March, and this next article is from last month. BUT I’m not posting it because it reveals details of Obama’s economic thinking, but I think it gives an inside look at how the decision making process comes about. I mean, if you pay attention.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/observer/story.html?id=461ba444-8a14-4531-93d1-8955527fd986
Two quotes from this second piece: .”For anyone who listened to Barack Obama’s speeches about transcending traditional left-right politics, the sentiment will sound familiar. And that may not be a coincidence.”
…
As for the accusation that Mr. Obama is a doctrinaire liberal, Mr. Sunstein scoffs. “He is thoroughly pragmatic and empirical.”
It seems the dissidents are going to the White House and behavioural economics may finally be put to the test.
From the last of this article.
“As for the accusation that Mr. Obama is a doctrinaire liberal, Mr. Sunstein scoffs. “He is thoroughly pragmatic and empirical.”
It seems the dissidents are going to the White House and behavioural economics may finally be put to the test.”
Eh, well, no editing possible for the repeat part.
Obama may be following some conservative paths at times, but I think it would be more correct to think that is where the current data and his policy advisors are taking him AT THE MOMENT rather than pinning him down forevermore.
Redistribution you will believe in…
How many times does one have to be proven wrong before one learns to extrapolate from current events rather than from extrapolations themselves.
I really think the word “liberal”, also, is being used quite inaccurately both by commenters here and even by Neo, above.
Right. For example, imo, most of today’s liberals should be called Faux Liberals/Fliberals – groupists who simply adopt the positions of the group, regardless of how those positions are derived – in order to distinguish them from Classical Liberals – who see all meaning as flowing from the individual’s rational-ethical nature and capacities, and positions therefore as the result of each person applying this capability to problems, leading to results such as the U.S. Constitution, the fruits of Science, and even George Bush’s perfect record in defending the Country from further 911-like attacks, which itself results from a quite rational strategy, importantly including the war in Iraq, a strategy which was also obviously changed from the previous one, and which Obama is going to be very careful with, imo.
It was first Faux Liberals who corrupted the term “liberal”, hoping to gain credit from what Classical Liberalism means, while in practice denying what is essential to it – leading to identity group politics and the obsessive stereotyping of people by externals [race, class, sex, age, ethnicity, nationality, region, State, occupation, education, etc.,…whatever!] the direct opposite of what Classical Liberalism presumes about individuals.
This destruction of words is a well known tactic of propaganda, one which I’ve been aware of for 40 years, for example.
But now “Progressives” have realized that the term “liberal” has essentially lost all political credit if not also all meaning – or at least that its use has been exhausted – so they have taken to calling themselves “Progressive”, in hopes of also shrouding their Controllist/Communist nature with a nice-sounding term. It’s strange, though, that they either don’t remember that “Progressive” is what rabid Socialists from way back called themselves, or else think no one else will remember.
At any rate, the term “liberal” has just about been defunctionalized. Again, destruction of the meaning of words is a well known propagandistic control tactic. I can no longer call myself a “liberal” or an “environmentalist”, for example. So communication becomes more difficult, not to mention how to even think about things.
But – note to brilliant propagandists – it’s not really that difficult. All you have to do is to simply see what is happening right in front of you.
Mitsu wrote, “most of you here seem to have an extremely distorted view of what most liberals believe, a view that included Obama himself. I’ve been trying to tell you that Obama is a pragmatist,
No. Not according to his stated policy positions during the campaign.
Mitsu wrote, “nd, yes, experience to the White House.”
What experience? No executive experience and his legislative experience has a 45% ‘present’ vote and almost nothing cosponsored that he can say, “this is why you should vote for me”.
Mitsu wrote, That’s change I can believe in.”
The details of the coming change were sparse. How is it you can believe in change that has no details? There were few details to go on and those stated details were bigger government details.
I’m one conservative who is also reasonably content with how things have gone so far (and I emphasize so far). While I voted for McCain, when the results of the election became clear, I accepted the fact that Obama would be my president (yes, MY president) for at least the next four years. Because I love my country more than I love either political party (I’m officially an independent), I want him to succeed. Of course, what I view as success probably differs than what most DailyKos readers would consider as such. With holdovers like Gates (and possibly Hayden?), seasoned military men like Jones, and mainstream liberals like Hillary and Holder set to occupy key positions in the Obama administration, things don’t look too bad from where I sit right now. Not perfect, as many of these choices have some significant baggage, but not bad. Maybe things will look worse in four years. I hope not, but that’s why we have elections.
This is only good because Clinton retreads are less radical than the sort of thing Obama was hinting at.
If he’d been pitching a return to do-nothing and government expansion and corruption (and versions of Hillarycare), it would have been different.
This is a relief, but only because the anticipated result would have been so much worse.
By itself, it’s still awful.
Here’s a radically left position of Obama’s
http://wordpress.redstate.com/blackhedd/2008/12/09/textbook-case-how-government-can-create-a-depression/
JP asserts: “George Bush’s perfect record in defending the Country from further 911-like attacks, which itself results from a quite rational strategy, importantly including the war in Iraq, a strategy which was also obviously changed from the previous one.”
Rational?
Then perhaps you can explain why Clinton was equally successful, or more so, if you count everything, at preventing terrorist attacks at spectacularly lower cost.
We’ve prevented terrorists attacks by dramatically ramping up airport security and immigration controls. The war in Iraq has merely created more terrorists, a fact which is beyond rational dispute. The fact that they haven’t attacked inside America is, again, the result of security measures, not the war itself. Clinton’s success using a law enforcement/intelligence strategy is further evidence of that.
Mitsu, you’re in for one hell of a disillusionment.
Bogey:
Evidently you are less than 15 years old, since otherwise you might remember that the FIRST time the World Trade Center was attacked by Islamic terrorists was in 1993, when Clinton was President. Five years later, while Clinton was still President, two embassies were bombed in Africa. Two years after that, while Clinton was still President, the USS Cole was attacked.
Oh, and while Clinton was President, Al-Qaeda was planning and training for a big operation involving passenger planes and the World Trade Center, but of course Clinton’s intelligence and law enforcement underlings didn’t think it was worth bothering about.
Clinton SUCKED at preventing terrorism. You either know that and are a damned liar, or you are really startlingly ignorant. Which is it?
I’m a conservative, and Obama worried me to no end. His shady past is a matter of record. So the question becomes: how does this past relate to the man – to who he really is, and how he’ll govern?
Answer 1.
Obama is a radical at heart. His moves to the center have been pragmatic, first to win the election, and now to be able to govern by maintaining majority support, but he’ll try to gradually implement as much leftism as possible.
Answer 2.
Obama is an ultra-calculating politician, seeking power, status, and fame. He deliberately continued the leftism of his grandparents and his upbringing, because he needed to build a political base. Having built his base, thus having secured his left flank, he could safely move to the center. Should the left feel betrayed, he could win re-election in the knowledge that the center now trusted him (if he actually governed from the center), and most of the left had nowhere else to go but Nader.
Answer 3.
There is no ‘there’ there. Here I’m going to be an armchair psychologist. Obama’s actions, combined with his broken childhood, remind me of something I read once about borderline personality disorder. Borderliners make for great friends (in the beginning), because they fulfill your every need. They manage to do so, because they are very observant. They’re very observant because they want to please you, and they adapt their behavior to what they see that you want. And they can adapt themselves, because they have no clear sense of their own identity. Such a lack of self is caused by severe childhood trauma, which also induces the need for love, and hence the desire to please. In the end, such people move from environment to environment, reinventing themselves in the process, but always finding their new best friends lacking, because none of them can ever give them enough love, thus subsequently discarding them, and taking on a new identity with new friends (who will also disappoint them).
Answer 4.
A combination of the previous.
Summing up:
I really don’t know what to think about this guy anymore. I used to think 1; I’m now veering toward 3. Time will tell.
The One’s mommy, daddy, grandma, and grandpa would surely have approved of this:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html
Oh, and note that the link above is from that notorious right-wing redneck American rag, the FT.
Then perhaps you can explain why Clinton was equally successful, or more so, if you count everything, at preventing terrorist attacks at spectacularly lower cost.
Give it up. You have been defeated. Otherwise, go back to Kindergarten, or perhaps even to the womb – or further.
Hello Neo,
There is one possibility about Obama that I haven’t heard anyone say just yet. What if the actions of the U.S. President is no longer as decisive as it used to be?
What I mean to say is, assuming he wants to preserve the Union, what if the President of the United States has no more choice in his course of action than a mouse running down a winding tunnel?
I understand that Obama is receiving the “real briefings” now that he has won the election, and if you notice, his hair is starting to turn white before the eyes of the public and there are lines on his face that wasn’t there before. The same sort of thing occurred with Clinton between the ’92 election and when he was first sworn in. With Clinton, it almost went white overnight. I consider this to be a good sign.
I think it is no accident that Obama has caved on almost every major foreign policy position. As odd as this sounds, at the moment, he is closer to President George Bush than to his Party on foreign policy.
Ironic, isn’t it?
… but, like I said, he may not have a choice in the matter, and I don’t think it would have been any different with a President McCain.
The fact that they haven’t attacked inside America is, again, the result of security measures, not the war itself.
So, you wanna’ bet against a policy with a perfect record, instead merely betting on your own wishful postulations? I personally don’t think Obama is dumb enough to do even that. Do you?
Hello Neo,
I said, “What I mean to say is, assuming he wants to preserve the Union, what if the President of the United States has no more choice in his course of action than a mouse running down a winding tunnel?”
Allow me to further had one more thing. I am sure there are many people who would take exception to this statement. But as counter intuitive as is, I believe that the higher one ascends in politics and power, the more one’s options are closed. Especially here in America.
As you ascend, your actions must necessarily become more constricted. You are allowed less forgivable mistakes by the populace and you’re abutted on all sides by political enemies, not least are the ones in your own party.
Many people have the false notion that the higher one goes, the more freedom one has. Quite the opposite is true. It is true for Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad, who’ve walled themselves off from the rest of the world, and it’s true of our President.
While we as freedom’s heirs can sit on our recliner and grouse to our hearts content, the President does not have that luxury neither on the domestic front nor on the foreign policy front.
We are not responsible for the lives of hundreds of millions.
He is.
I really have to tell y’all, talking to Progressives is most like talking to little babies, once they reach the state of potential understanding of words – except that I wouldn’t want to disparage the average little baby.
Trim: Do the math.
There were no terrorist attacks in the U.S. between 1993 and 2001.
That’s 8 years.
So far, there have been no terrorist attacks within the U.S.
since 2001.
That’s 7 years.
Clinton kept us safe from outside terror for just about the same period that Bush did — even if there are not attacks for the remainder of Bush’s term.
It’s not clear whether you, Trim, are confused, or whether you are simply trying to confuse others.
You site two cases where Americans were attacked outside the U.S. while Clinton was president, but the number of attacks on Americans outside the U.S. have been literally uncountable under the Bush administration, resulting in thousands of deaths. Exponentially more than under Clinton. The number of terrorist incidents against all targets in all countries has mushroomed.
Do the math.
Under Bush, we have more than 4,000 and counting Americans dead, plus nearly a 1 trillion dollars for Iraq alone — not counting long term expenses like health care for the 10s of thousands of Americans maimed in the war.
Under Clinton, the U.S. was perfectly safe from outside terror attacks for 8 years — longer than Bush — while the spending on counter terror measures was but a few billion and virtually zero casualties.
Instead of slobbering out insults, Trim, you should do the math.
writes:
“While Clinton was still President, two embassies were bombed in Africa. Two years after that, while Clinton was still President, the USS Cole was attacked.”
Oh, and while Clinton was President, Al-Qaeda was planning and training for a big operation involving passenger planes and the World Trade Center, but of course Clinton’s intelligence and law enforcement underlings didn’t think it was worth bothering about.
And what should I wager, Trim, that if the U.S. is attacked by terrorists nine months into the Obama administration, that you’ll blame Bush, right?
I’ve been trying to tell you that Obama is a pragmatist
ergo… an admission that he is a communist…
pragmatism was and is amoral reasoning to an end justifying any means. if you dont agree, then you dont understand pragmatism… [though you can read a lot more about it in soviet papers]
soon… we will hear the word praxis again… 🙂
An idealist usually cannot acknowledge his own bullshit, because it is in the nature of his “ism” that he must pretend it does not exist. In fact, I should say that anyone who is devoted to an “ism”—Fascism, Communism, Capital-ism—probably has a seriously defective crap-detector. This is especially true of those devoted to “patriotism.” Santha Rama Rau has called patriotism a squalid emotion. I agree. Mainly because I find it hard to escape the conclusion that those most enmeshed in it hear no bullshit whatever in its rhetoric, and as a consequence are extremely dangerous to other people. If you doubt this, I want to remind you that murder for murder, General Westmoreland makes Vito Genovese look like a Flower Child.
from “Bullshit and the Art of Crap-Detection”
by Neil Postman
and mitsu is a produce of one of the biggest bullshit training factories of the modern age!!!
which is not true to its heritage… but hey, gut and take over aythig and people might think it was the same because the outside never seemed to cahnge.
Bogey wrote, “And what should I wager, Trim, that if the U.S. is attacked by terrorists nine months into the Obama administration, that you’ll blame Bush, right?”
Technically it was in the 8th month and no I’ll BLAME THE TERRORISTS
Novel concept!
But if Obama treats a 9/11 like a ‘law enforcement’ action – you bet I’ll be saying something about Obama’s measly ‘actions’
Neo,
http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2008/12/infrastructure-stimulus.html
Pingback:Obama and the Presidency « Troubling Trifles
“There were no terrorist attacks in the U.S. between 1993 and 2001.”
The lie doesn’t become true no matter how many times you repeat it.