http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...ma-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html Article is too long to fully reprint. It's interesting read though...
In any normal time, Obama would be your classic center right candidate. 40 years ago he'd be a solid Republican nominee. In today's political climate, he's a radical socialist that hates America. We're living in a screwed up time when it comes to politics.
If anything, it is the left that needs to skewer Obama. He is the left's Romney. A moderate that more often than not bends out in the wrong way. Given his actions on the war on drugs, record deportations, civil liberties, and his weak legistative reforms with regards to Wall Street, he "can't be counted on to do the (left) thing." I give him props for surviving in a centre-right country, and doing all he could in the face of that poisoned atmosphere, but his discretionary actions on things like the Manning and Drake cases have left much to be desired.
I'm a little unmoved by the charges of ideological inauthenticity by people of seemingly opposing political parties. Modern liberalism and conservatism are just proxies for regional, racial and economic differences that we're too fair-minded and optimistic to validate or enforce institutionally.
I know I've railed against the Tea Party for their fanatical commitment to what they deem to be conservative orthodoxy ( all hail St. Reagan), but Sullivan really isn't a conservative, he's closer to a libertarian. I mean, this is a guy who endorsed Kerry, and who endorsed Obama in 2008, and has been extremely friendly with Ron Paul and his viewpoints. Perhaps you could call him a conservative when viewed from a British perspective ( which he is), but here he really isn't. In b4 leftists rail on how the European political spectrum is so superior.
I am curious why liberals rail so hard against Obama. He sold himself as a pragmatist....that's exactly what he turned out to be.
That was my first thought as soon as I saw the headline. Andrew Sullivan has been against the Republican party for years so I don't think this is a surprise.
His overall campaign message was nebulous and allowed many people to read into it many different things. Many liberals saw the message of "hope and change" as bringing about a liberal revolution. For that matter Obama's campaign specifics and rhetoric frequently brought up liberal issues. While these were often qualified it's certainly understandable that liberals expected more of him.
I guess people really did expect him to be some sort of messiah. I think he has done what I expected....govern forms pragmatic and Long term approach. He tried to reach across the aisle and compromise...and include republican thinking in his approach. When he ran everyone loved that. But in reality liberal now feel he was too conservative and compromising. It's very ironic. I give the man credit. He's become far more skillful as a politician and is havin an almost reaganeque rivivsl at the moment. He was woodstood the worst. If the economy continues to recover more focus will be put on his overall accomplishments.
Actually, his rhetoric was very specific. -End Bush tax cuts; tax income 250k+/top earners -Eliminate exec orders that Bush & Co had placed deemed unconstitutional -Stop catering & pandering to Wallstreet/special interests -dial down war effort -introduce transparency to washington again All these things captured the independent and left because we expected 'change' from Bush era policies. Sweet Lou libs & his base, or at least those really paying attention, rail against Obama because he's done none of those things he campaigned on above while further enabling the police state agenda Bush & his cronies helped established post 9/11. His greatest accomplishment his hardcore base would claim is his healthcare reform and even that benefited insurance companies more than it benefited the average american.
There was a lot more to it than just those. He also talked about changing the tone in Washington, improving the environment, energy independence, and of course health care reform. The overall message of "Hope and Change' was very vague and one that many people read differently. Considering we have withdrawn from Iraq he has dialed down the war effort. As far as whether health care reform has benefited insurance companies more than average Americans that is yet to be seen since it hasn't been fully implemented.
Hardly a surprise. A real conservative (i.e., not the jingoistic evangelical anti-government lunatics that represent a good chunk of the GOP rabble) would find Obama's policies perfectly acceptable. A moderate conservative.
It does really further the common good to take the single weakest sentence (or even phrase) out of an entire thoughtful article as justification for complete rejection. We all do it, and it's as lazy as it is counterproductive.
Define meaningful - they seem perfectly clear to me. Perhaps you just don't like hearing something that counters your biases?
To me if he wants to lie with numbers and timing like that it isn't a thoughtful piece. Point of view and bias is fine but it is obvious this guy is letting his hatred of Bush hurt his credibility.
There are no lies in this article - this is simply comparing the actual numbers during Obama's term to those claimed by the GOP. You have confirmed that you simply don't want to hear the facts. I will consider that before wasting any time responding to you in the future.
