Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Obama’s centrist shift evaporates”

You don’t say! James Pethokoukis:

President Barack Obama’s much-trumpeted move to the center? Apparently, it doesn’t go much beyond using buzzwords such as “innovation” and employing CEOs as stage props. His 2012 budget introduction and Wisconsin incursion make that clear.

This was the week for the president to show that he had really learned the lessons of both the 2010 midterms and the shortfalls of his own economic policies. Instead, it was the American public that learned something. It learned that Obama pretty much is who he is – and he’s probably not going to change.

He’s the guy who was the U.S. Senate’s most extreme liberal. He’s the guy who told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” He’s the guy who tried to use the Great Recession to greatly expand the welfare state.

He’s that guy.

My. If only someone other than very unhelpful repulsive fringe extremists had warned us…

****
related. (thanks to silver whistle)

10 Replies to ““Obama’s centrist shift evaporates””

  1. mojo says:

    I must admit that I find all this sudden surprise that Bambi is, at heart, a standard-issue Proggie Dipshit just a trifle disingenuous.

    God knows I told everybody who would hold still long enough.

  2. Silver Whistle says:

    Good piece by Matt Welch. I’m glad the lines are being drawn, and the electorate are finally seeing who is who. This is all good for 2012. Dear Leader is really screwing up here big time.

  3. Squid says:

    Not helpful. So not helpful.

  4. newrouter says:

    While not an actual armed revolution, the battle now engaged absolutely has the potential to be politically-revolutionary in nature. The Left knows it. Democrats in Congress know it and Obama knows it. That is why they are going all in. The American people now best represented by the Tea Party must go all in, too, or we will lose. And, win, or lose, the outcome of the larger, now national battle, will most likely reverberate back through history, as well as play an important part in determining America’s future course.

    link

  5. Joe says:

    Jeff, you need to threaten to stop posting more often if the result is whats happening today.

  6. newrouter says:

    But Dionne, Lane and Rubin are really missing the point of both the crackdown in Bahrain and the events in Wisconsin. That is captured in the phrase “by any means necessary”. The beat-downs in the Gulf are a power play, as is the thuggery in Wisconsin. In both cases, the key question is never, “who is right” but “who’s side are you on?”. The difference is that democracy was never part, even in theory, of absolutist rule in Bahrain, but was the very bedrock of the system that governs Wisconsin.

    In rising to the defense of Shi’ites in Bahrain and union thugs in America, liberal talking points have reached such a state of incoherence that they’ve managed to invert the classic Marxist critique of America from “liberty at home and repression abroad” to “liberty abroad and repression at home”. But in so doing they’ve missed the real dilemma posed by Bahrain? What does a majority do when it feels the minority decides to impose their will by any means necessary?

    That is the terrible question that overreach in all its forms poses. Whatever the Bahrainis do, should the Tea Parties counter-mobilize and rush to Wisconsin and meet numbers with numbers? Or do they let the unions rampage and destroy what credibility they have left in the belief that this will lead to electoral advantages in 2012? The answer is likely to be supplied not by any political leaders, but by emergent events.

    link

  7. newrouter says:

    “Wrote Calvin Coolidge in his memoirs:

    “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, any time, anywhere.”

    This phrase caught the attention of the nation. It was beginning to be clear that if voluntary associations were to be permitted to substitute their will for the authority of public officials the end of our government was at hand. The issue was nothing less than whether the law which the people had made through their duly authorized agencies should be supreme.

  8. Mikey NTH says:

    When challenged the president proved that he is no Bill Clinton, and that his ‘triangulation, was built on a firm foundation of sand. As soon as he was challenged he went right back to his former stance. Alinsky without the intelligence, FDR without the charm, and LBJ without the skills. And referencing the latter two, without the sense.

    The flight of the Democrat state senators shows weakness, the mobilization through the president’s own group shows desperation. The longer this lasts, the more ticked off his opposition gets. Let Prof. Piven laugh, for she is no Sun Tzu, for being ready to go into battle does not mean that you win the battle; and winning the battle does not mean that you win the war.

    It took a long time to get here, after all.

  9. Mikey NTH says:

    #7 newrouter: It is a case of the employees and the management setting up a system to enrich themselves at the expense of the owners. In other news, Henry Clay Frick is still dead.

  10. Danger says:

    From Jeff’s link:

    “As Obama told a Milwaukee television reporter: “Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where they’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems like more of an assault on unions.”

    So, I guess what he’s saying is Govenor Walker acted stupidly too!

Comments are closed.