Obama: A False Moderate?

[GaryC 7]

Obama: A False Moderate?

By Michael Gerson

WASHINGTON -- It was not quite a Roger Mudd moment, but it was close. Mudd, you might recall, posed a simple question to Ted Kennedy in 1979: "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's vague, unprepared answer raised serious questions about his candidacy.

Recently, Jake Tapper of ABC News asked a similarly blunt question of Barack Obama: "Have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?" Obama's response is worth quoting in full: "Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn't popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get something done in Washington, it entails some political risks. But I think the basic principle which you pointed out is that I have consistently said, when it comes to solving problems, like nuclear proliferation or reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, that I don't approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective."

For a candidate running as a centrist reformer, this is pretty weak tea. Ethics reform and nuclear proliferation are important issues but they have hardly put Obama in the liberal doghouse. When I recently asked two U.S. senators who are personally favorable to Obama to name a legislative issue where Obama has vocally bucked his own party, neither could cite a single instance.

The contrast to John McCain is stark. Contrary to some depictions, McCain is not a moderate. He is a conservative with a habit of massive, eye-stretching heresy. He has supported gun control legislation, the expansion of the AmeriCorps service program, and campaign finance and comprehensive immigration reform -- leaving many conservatives in fits of sputtering, red-faced outrage. He joined the moderate Gang of 14 on judicial nominations and supports mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

McCain has the scars to show for it. Sen. Mitch McConnell dismissed McCain's campaign finance legislation as "stunningly stupid." Another Republican senator, quoted on background in 2001, vented: "Every time McCain accuses President Bush's budget of favoring the rich or sides with Sen. Ted Kennedy on his patients' bill of rights or Sen. Joe Lieberman on more gun control or all those other Democrats on restricting the First Amendment on campaign finance reform, it's news only because he's a Republican. It's 'man bites dog,' and it hurts us far more than if he were attacking our philosophy and agenda as an independent or a Democrat."

This is not to argue that defying your party is uniformly admirable. Sometimes McCain's courage gets mixed up with his pride -- and maybe, in the end, they are indistinguishable. But the same could be said of Winston Churchill, who changed parties more than once. We tend to admire this kind of disruptive independence.

Obama's four years in the Senate have provided fewer opportunities for heresy than McCain's 22. Yet Obama draws scrutiny to this subject by making his transcendence of political categories one of his main campaign themes. He has shown occasional hints of independence on education -- supporting charter schools and merit pay for teachers. But for the most part, Obama's post-partisanship is more a matter of tone. He speaks movingly about the positive role of religion in our common life. He urges fathers to meet their moral and economic responsibilities to their children. He rejects the demonization of pro-lifers (though he refuses to oppose partial-birth abortion). He defends the good intentions of Democratic senators who voted for Chief Justice John Roberts (though he was one of only 22 senators who voted against Roberts).

These are welcome gestures, but they are not policies. Perhaps Obama is just conventionally liberal. Perhaps he has carefully avoided offending Democratic constituencies. Whatever the reason, his lack of a strong, centrist ideological identity raises a concern about his governing approach. Obama has no moderate policy agenda that might tame or modify the extremes of his own party in power. Will every Cabinet department simply be handed over to the most extreme Democratic interest groups? Will Obama provide any centrist check on congressional liberal overreach?

It is an odd thing when a presidential candidate bases his campaign on a manifest weakness. Rudy Giuliani ran on a platform of foreign policy experience while lacking it completely. Obama promises post-partisanship while doing little to demonstrate it in the Senate. And the independent voters so eagerly courted in this election may eventually ask about Obama the odd but appropriate question: What dogs has this man bitten?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...t_bite_dog.html

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

wow. Gary. A post about Obama? No, really? I'm shocked.

Why do you bother.

[GaryC 7]

wow. Gary. A post about Obama? No, really? I'm shocked.

Why do you bother.

This one actually has a point. Some people here have been touting the idea that Obama is some sort of a "reach across the isle" type that will work with everyone. My point is that he isn't, McCain is the one that does that. This story says it better than I can.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

no, the only point any of this cr@p has, is spamming our OT forum.

[GaryC 7]

no, the only point any of this cr@p has, is spamming our OT forum.

Ah, I see. No opinions that you don't like are allowed. To bad.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

Opinions are fine. Restating your opinion to the point where your threads are a hinderance to the forum is spamming.

[no name 1]

Opinions are fine. Restating your opinion to the point where your threads are a hinderance to the forum is spamming.

Discussed over & over.

Don't like, don't click.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Opinions are fine. Restating your opinion to the point where your threads are a hinderance to the forum is spamming.

Discussed over & over.

Don't like, don't click.

Pointing that out is kinda stupid though, no?

Free will and all that...

Don't like? Don't respond...

You will of course... so much for ignore

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This one actually has a point.

which means you admit that the half million others didn't? excellent.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Opinions are fine. Restating your opinion to the point where your threads are a hinderance to the forum is spamming.

if you honestly feel that it is a problem, please take it up with a mod or the fuzzy one.

[GaryC 7]

This one actually has a point.

which means you admit that the half million others didn't? excellent.

Most were to just pizz you off. It looks like it worked.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This one actually has a point.

which means you admit that the half million others didn't? excellent.

Most were to just pizz you off. It looks like it worked.

Nah, Gary. I'm doing just fine.

[Ggreen 12]

This one actually has a point.

which means you admit that the half million others didn't? excellent.

Most were to just pizz you off. It looks like it worked.

QUOTE(vjmmbr @ Jun 7 2008, 12:00 PM)

QUOTE(nana_356 @ Jun 7 2008, 11:21 AM)

Hmmmmmm. with all the anti-obama topics.....I think some one is feeling threatened and not too confident!!!!!

The New Jimmy Carter is his New Tactic, if he is sure that McCai ill win, he'd stop posting anti-Obama topics and help VJ members by telling them what day their immigration case will be approved.

It's not a tactic, it's the truth. A am very confident that McCain will win. I just enjoy watching the Obamabots scurry about when I post. It's fun to watch.

................................................................................

..............................

You say that all the time, a good discussion is not your goal i believe...attacking Obama tactic may not help.

[GaryC 7]

This one actually has a point.

which means you admit that the half million others didn't? excellent.

Most were to just pizz you off. It looks like it worked.

Nah, Gary. I'm doing just fine.

Do you finally see how it looks when you constantly hammer the same thing over and over? For years all we heard about was how bad Bush was. Just a few months of the same thing about Obama had you foaming at the mouth with every post. You couldn't help yourself, you just had to respond. If I didn't get a rise out of you this would have stopped a long time agol.

I know that I have been annoying to a lot of people here. But I wanted you to see what it was like to be on the recieving end of it. Other than some relevent political topics I am done with the hit pieces. Unless of course you would like to have another round of "who can bash the others candidate most" duel.

I am ready to call a truce. Are you ready to accept it?

[Ggreen 12]

Obama and Bush are not the same.

Mccain and Bush are, that's the reason for the season.