The last two months have been rough for Barack Obama. He's been left-baited, race-baited, red-baited and tarred as an "elitist." Perhaps that's why he finally consented, after 772 days of holding out, to be interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News. It was a strong move from a defensive position, and Obama gave an agile performance on the whole, deftly parrying Wallace's efforts to nail him on Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and the infamous oft-missing American flag pin. But what's up with Obama's shout-out to Republican ideas?

Pressing Obama on his credentials as a "uniter" and measuring his record against the alleged bi-partisanship of John McCain, Wallace asked: "As a president, can you name a hot button issue where you would be willing to cross Democratic party line[s] and say you know what, Republicans have a better idea here?"

Obama's response: "Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea...on issues of regulation, I think that back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, a lot of the way we regulated industry was top down command and control. We're going to tell businesses exactly how to do things. And I think that the Republican party...came with the notion that you know what, if you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives for businesses, let them figure out how they're going to for example reduce pollution."

Obama's comments echo remarks he made back in January to the Reno Gazette-Journal when he said that he thought Ronald Reagan "changed the trajectory of America" in a way that Bill Clinton had not. In that interview, Obama said that Republicans have been "the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time" and that Reagan "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country...felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating."

John Edwards and Hillary Clinton jumped all over him for that one, and Obama's supporters leapt to his defense, claiming that "Obama didn't really say that Republicans had better ideas than Dems," and that he was being merely descriptive about recent political history.

Well, there you have it. Unequivocally, Obama has now said that "there are a whole host of areas" where Republicans have better ideas. What are these ideas? And what game is Obama playing?

In the Fox interview, Obama went on to advocate a cap and trade system for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, saying that it's a "smarter way" than "dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by" (read: carbon tax and direct regulation) which would create "a lot of bureaucracy and red tape" (read: FAILED, BIG government).

Then, unprompted, Obama took a nick at teacher's unions (who have endorsed Hillary Clinton) and advocated for charter schools and a version of merit pay for teachers.

In a response to a question from Wallace about judicial nominations, Obama touted his defense on Daily Kos of his Democratic colleagues who voted to confirm John Roberts (Obama voted nay). Obama then cited his support of a ban on "late term abortion" or "partial birth abortion," as long as there are "provisions to protect the health of the mother," as an example of his ability to cut through "polarizing debate."

But in this instance, Obama doesn't overcome the polarization of issues so much as try to play it both ways. NB: his use of both "late term abortion" and the right-wing slang "partial birth abortion" in the same breath. Obama describes Republican efforts to eliminate any consideration of the mother's health as a strategy to "polarize the debate" so that they could "bring an end [to] abortions overall" (true). But in the same sentence he says that he doesn't "begrudge that at all" and claims that anti-choicers have a "a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral."

The fact is, on these and most issues Obama is little different than Hillary Clinton. Both of them are mainstream Democrats who are, in the case of abortion, trying to sidestep a contentious, culture wars issue. They both voted against the Roberts nomination--but Obama provided cover for his colleagues who voted the other way. Like Clinton, who lamented abortion as a "sad, even tragic choice," Obama adopts the language of right-wing anti-choicers, even as they both support pro-choice policies broadly. Both Obama and Cinton eschew a more stringent carbon tax and direct regulation plan in favor of a market-based cap and trade system that provides wiggle room for corporate polluters. Both support charter schools, but in one of the few policy differences between them, Clinton is against merit pay for teachers.

But it's not really Obama's positions on these issues that I find troubling, though I disagree with most of them. It's the political framework of his crushed-out props to the GOP (and to be perfectly clear, I find Clinton's history of triangulation even more worrisome). Both of them are pro-corporate, centrist Democrats trying to position themselves to win a general election. But while Obama's rhetoric of bi-partisanship, unity and reconciliation may help him win over stray Republicans and independents in November, he appears to have embraced the anti-big government paradigm that Republicans have used to strip regulations and roll back the welfare state. How much will Obama concede to this logic? This is a question that ought to worry progressives, not in 2009, but now.

This magazine has endorsed Barack Obama, a decision I agreed with then and still do now. But it defies logic and evidence to think that Obama is--as some conservatives fear and some progressives hope--a secret leftist in moderate's clothes. In helping Barack Obama get elected, the left must also create leverage within his grand coalition to advance its own agenda. As Obama pivots to a general election contest against McCain, the pressure on him to drift rhetorically and substantively towards the right will only increase--as does then our own duty to be a dry-eyed and pragmatic left. Hopeful, yes. But also free of illusions.

Comments (83)

1. Obama is "shouting" Repub ideas because he wants to get elected. He cannot win with lib white elites in NY and SF and the blacks alone, since it appears he can't appeal to the rank and file in the middle of the Dem party.

   Posted by JOMAMMA at 04/28/2008 @ 2:55pm

2. Yeah, MAASCH is right.

   Obama is "moving to the Center" because he knows he's 80%+ the nominee and he knows McCain is moving to the Center, and he wants to get there first.

   Plus he's not saying anything new or different from Hillary either.

   Posted by Mask at 04/28/2008 @ 3:01pm

3. "let them figure out how they're going to for example reduce pollution."

   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   i knew it!

   the wheels on the bus go round and round............

   Monday, April 28, 2008 3:31:44 PM

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2008 @ 3:27pm

4. What gives? Obama wants to be president, that's what gives. He's sending a message to corporate US: I'm safe, I'm your guy, no need to swiftboat me via the GOP. And BTW, Nation readers: Obama's campaign hasn't mentioned it, yet, but the GOP will, if Billary get the nomination ... checkout Billary's huge achilles heel, on youtube: Clinton clemency FALN. It could be fatal to Billary & be assured the GOP will use it.

   Posted by sloper at 04/28/2008 @ 3:30pm

5. Yeah, but it's crazy to simply mouth the same positions as the GOP platform simply to win "cred" with "centrist" voters.

   The vast majority of voters are knuckledragging mouthbreaters. A demagogue simply plays to their biases and pre-existing prejudices. A leader (note: different from a "misleaderer") uses moral suasion, evidence, and an appeal to the common good (again, often confused with but quite different from collective self-interest--e.g. Papa Reagan's "Are you better off . . . ?"). The reason I prefer Obama to HRC is that he is capable of leadership--examining issues and competing interests and determining after a fair hearing what policies are in the interest of the nation & world (yes, the US is still part of planet earth, last I checked, much to the chagrin of GOP trolls who hover here). In other words, unlike HRC it is possible to foresee Obama taking a principled stand and leading the nation to adopt it. This is what Kennedy did on civil rights, for instance. (Of course, they had to shoot him for that, just as they did Lincoln.)

   This is exactly what Bill Clinton did NOT do. He lacked the moral courage. On both energy policy and health care, even though the Clintons knew what the right policy direction was, they caved (lost moral courage) as soon as they got heat from the Right. They kvetched about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" instead of resisting it. Of course there's a vast right-wing conspiracy! It's called the Moneyed Class! Do you think they will ever be wrenched away from the jugular they are sucking on without a fight? It took a fight in Teddy Roosevelt's time. It took a fight in FDR's time. It took a fight in JFK's time. It will take a fight today and forever. They never give up. They OWN this country and they will take it back if it takes 100 years.

   So if Obama is out to prove that he can temporize and accommodate right along with the Clintons, I'm done with him. Count my vote for Uncle Ralph right now. There's a guy who has NEVER backed down from a fight with Draculas who have made a living of feeding off our body politic. And we need a Van Helsing of the Left, now more than ever.

   Posted by goyadad at 04/28/2008 @ 3:41pm

6. The vast majority of voters are knuckledragging mouthbreaters. ----Posted by goyadad at 04/28/2008

   Translation: "The people are stupid and need to be led to what smart people like ME believe!"

   And I promise you goya would never see himself as arrogant or condescending or be able to fathom why his attitude COSTS "progressives" elections, not wins them.

   Posted by Mask at 04/28/2008 @ 3:55pm

7. "And I promise you goya would never see himself as arrogant ..."

   But I see a knuckle dragger in him...

   Posted by JOMAMMA at 04/28/2008 @ 3:57pm

8. Here's the youtube Clinton FALN clemency on behalf of HRC's senate campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfCkQ-p2beo

   Posted by sloper at 04/28/2008 @ 4:03pm

9. MASK & MAASCH . . .

   You guys amuse me no end!

   Two things: 1) Prove that the majority (omit "vast" for convenience) of voters are not ill-informed, reactionary, selfish, and parochial (my notion of "knuckledragging mouthbreathers" -- please note that I do not say Neanderthals, because comparing these former humanoids possessed of considerable sensitivity and cultural attainment to present American electorate would be an insult and an injustice). You may use any evidence that you like, just so long as it is probative (i.e. more than just your say-so).

   2) Prove that the GOP is devoid of "elitists" who think they are far above the cloddish, doltish voters that they must demagogue during election cycles. Prove that the GOP insiders are as salty as the "salt ‘o th' earth" mudpuppies that they pretend to represent.

   Then, and only then, will I accept your hypocritical accusations of my hypocrisy as anything even contending for validity.

   There! Shows what you are!

   Posted by goyadad at 04/28/2008 @ 4:11pm

10. Posted by JOMAMMA at 04/28/2008

    Purists ...are usually rather lonely folks. Given they don't have much population to draw on and don't include folks that aren't as pure (on the Left, this is basically your Naderite).

    But the Right atleast seems less stupid...McCain getting the nomination seems proof of that, if not the fact that even "true blue" conservatives are willing to support him, despite all the SELL-OUTS he's thrown their way.

    The purist Left though demands that Obama sound like Eugene V. Debs or Barry Commoner or else he's "not good enough" and instead of a 1/2 a loaf...somebody on the Other Side wins and takes their bread and gives them a s**t sandwich...until the next election cycle, where some Dem says AT THE LEAST he'll remove the fecal matter from the two slices, but the Purists still insist on their whole loaf and once again after Election Day help put in the excrement-on-the-Wonderbread guys into power!

    Posted by Mask at 04/28/2008 @ 4:14pm

11. Posted by goyadad at 04/28/2008

    I never said you were hypocritical, goya....

    I said you were arrogant and condescending, and because the public isn't leaping to vote for Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader....worthy of derision and a "they need a good shepherd to lead those sheep" political strategem.

    And the fact that you'd never see how such an attitude COSTS progressives, because it rarely stays a secret (especially with the Internet).

    And odd as it may seem to you, people don't respond well to others who call them 'knuckledraggers' if they don't do what THEY say!

    Posted by Mask at 04/28/2008 @ 4:17pm

12. Well, in some circles (say certain non-conforming LDS communities in Texas) a person is "arrogant" he chooses to forgo intimacy with blood relatives for purposes of propagation. (And those folks in Texas vote, too.) Let us leave aside the issue of characterizing essentially anonymous posters here and consider whether the state of the union has been advanced by political leaders who have encouraged the populace to persevere in their ages-old pre-existing notions, or rather by those who (at some considerable risk to themselves and their fortunes) advocate policies that challenge the public to hold the nation to a higher standard--oh, I don't know . . . Maybe an aggressive campaign to reduce dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels? (Carter) Maybe commitment to serious negotiations for peace in Vietnam? (McGovern) Maybe a commitment to meaningful environmental standards responsive to established science? (Dukakis)

    Now, these guys are all "losers" of course. But the ideas aren't losers, not in the long run. In fact, even Pat Freaking Robertson is doing ads with Al Sharpton urging action on "climate change" now. (That's a conversion experience!) But what has happened in the interim is that the public is used to having politicians give them the happy talk and treat them like children and tell them that they can have their Nascar & their Gen'ral Lee from now until eternity and there's no price to pay for that.

    That's the difference between a demagogue and a leader. A leader has the courage to speak "truth to idiocy" and not tuck tail & run when they get blow-back from the VRWC ("vast right-wing conspiracy"), which they always will.

    Posted by goyadad at 04/28/2008 @ 5:03pm

13. In fact, MASK, the argument could be made (not that I'm making it) that in fact it is people who believe that the public will never "get wise," are incapable of change, and are deserving of none (what would they ever do with flush toilets anyway?) that are TRULY the "arrogant and condescending" ones, and with a wink and a nod urge, "Say what the polls tell you say. Promise what you need to promise. Then govern they way you want to govern. Just so long as Her Nibs is shut out in the cold." It's just politics, after all, in the same sense that Charlie Partanna's father reassured him that murder and treachery are "just business"--nothing to get worked up about. Happens every day, nothing really changes--as long as we get what we need, why get fussed?

    But like I say, it's a possible argument, not one I'd make because, dude, I scarcely KNOW you!

    Posted by goyadad at 04/28/2008 @ 5:13pm

14. MASK, because you may appreciate it . . .

    "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it.Madrake? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard core commie works."

    Or "on the Left . . . basically your Naderite."

    Posted by goyadad at 04/28/2008 @ 5:24pm

15. Jomamma, you know he's talking up Republicans ideas because he's on a Republican media outlet. Shoot, anyone can find areas, even vast areas, where they can agree with ostensibly Republican ideology - such as fiscal responsibility.

    Mask, you know as well as I do that Obama is not moving anymore right than he already laid out in Nevada.

    The Nation, while I think the web site update is interesting from the point of view of having RSS feeds and some additional functionality, it is a clusterfuck from an interactive perspective.

    The basics which were in place such as a reasonably sized textbox for comments, preview, and a date time stamp have been removed because whoever you didn't bother to spec out that these features are useful to your posting community.

    Not to mention all the failed opportunities such as threaded discussions, user-rated comments, user customized pages, etc. All anyone needs to do is take a look at a website that does all these things right, like Slashdot - a website that developed these features over years and is probably one of the best systems out there. Shoot, they even give away their underlying software for free - which you could have co-opted for the site redesign at less cost. But, it looks like we have yet another example of not invented here syndrome. You guys blew it from the the perspective of developing The Nation's online community.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/28/2008 @ 6:29pm

16. "In other words, unlike HRC it is possible to foresee Obama taking a principled stand and leading the nation to adopt it. This is what Kennedy did on civil rights, for instance."

    Posted by goyadad at 04/28/2008

    Kennedy took a stand on Civil Rights!? Dude, what are you smoking? The Kennedys weren't too fond of the Civil Rights movement or Dr. King. Had he lived, I don't think he would have sign it into law under his administration. Oh, and in case you've forgotten, RFK was the AG and under J. Edgar Hoover, they spied on Dr. King until the day he died.

    Posted by ACook at 04/28/2008 @ 6:34pm

17. Posted by srjenkins at 04/28/2008

    Excellent post.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 04/28/2008 @ 6:46pm

18. Posted by goyadad at 04/28/2008

    Naderites don't drink flouridated water, goya...

    they drink Kool-Ade!

    Posted by Mask at 04/28/2008 @ 9:07pm

19. Posted by srjenkins at 04/28/2008 |

    Notice the "quotes", SRJ.

    He's TALKING "moving to the Center"...same as McCain is.

    Actually, it'll only be AFTER one or the other is elected that they'll actually move to the Center, due to political realities that bloggers (and some "Nation" writers) always fail to realize.

    Posted by Mask at 04/28/2008 @ 9:09pm

20. it's gonna take a lot of work to remove the dumb from freedom.

    Monday, April 28, 2008 9:59:03 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2008 @ 9:55pm

21. Thanks, SR Jenkins, for the nice post regarding the poor web page redesign. I vented just a bit of steam last Friday on the topic.

    As far as the Obama-Wright media manufactured "controversy", it looks to me like the so-called mainstream media has powered up into full attack mode.

    Aside from the initial CNN airing of the Detroit NAACP speech with its fair minded defense of Wright's brilliantly engaging performance (the voice and cadence conjured George Carlin's greatest monologues) by Soledad O'Brien and her CNN partner, the media appears to be on the warpath --including Keith Olbermann and his sidekick Dick Wolffe.

    I think the absorbing Mike Whitney piece at Counterpunch has it about right.

    counterpunch.org/whitney04282008.html

    excerpt:

    America has blood on its hands. America, as Martin Luther King said, "is the greatest perpetrator of violence in the world today." So what else is new?

    The media use every soapbox in the country to preach uber-nationalism and vilify America's critics as unpatriotic. That's why the wrath of the media has descended on Obama like a Texas hailstorm; they're afraid he doesn't understand who really runs things in America.

    Wright means nothing to the media or to the men behind the curtain. If he didn't provide an avenue for denigrating Obama, he'd be treated with the same indifference as the thousands of other blacks who were herded at gunpoint into the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina. Better buckle up. Obama has entered the crosshairs of America's criminal oligarchy and things are bound to get nasty.

    ~It's difficult to argue against Whitney's point if you've been watching the feeding frenzy of commentary that has presented a virtuoso performance of tight synchronization.

    This appears to be the moment of most severe crisis for Obama. If he's going to ride this one out, I suspect he's going to have to go to the well with a spectacular speech in order to defuse the now rapidly ticking time-bomb that the media has padlocked around his neck.

    May the force be with him.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/28/2008 @ 10:25pm

22. Nice work, Frost.

    I love it!

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/28/2008 @ 10:26pm

23. once again, america, once again.

    how is it you always manage to choose the worst possible president?

    and they seem to be getting worser.

    Monday, April 28, 2008 10:31:25 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2008 @ 10:27pm

24. thanks, bkool.

    Monday, April 28, 2008 10:32:10 PM

    it's really, really hard to think in this new format.

    really, really hard to read other's ideas.

    §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§

    <i>As we continue to work out the bugs, take some time to become acquainted with the new site. SEND ME YOUR IMPRESSIONS EITHER VIA A WEB LETTER OR MAILING ME DIRECTLY AT JOANMCONNELL@GMAIL.COM.

    I look forward to hearing from you.</i>

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2008 @ 10:30pm

25. Posted by Mask at 04/28/2008 <<somebody on the Other Side wins and takes their bread and gives them a s**t sandwich.>>

    And as y'all have perhaps heard before, "Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you got, the less s**t you have to eat."

    Posted by Radscal at 04/28/2008 @ 10:55pm

26. Thanks FZ. I sent a more detailed and better phrased list of suggestions to Joan.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/28/2008 @ 11:34pm

27. well, thank you srj.

    Monday, April 28, 2008 11:52:31 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2008 @ 11:48pm

28. We have nearly guaranteed the election of McCain. African-Americans are not going to vote for Hillary, nor will the the Catholics and fundamentalists. Code word of the pope "life begins at conception" end of story. The media is now in the process of distorting Rev. Wright by truncating the sound bites of his last three appearances. I have watched the three television appearances in their entirety and the media version of each is virtually beyond recognition.

    Posted by julien38 at 04/29/2008 @ 12:23am

29. Red White and Blue = Rednecks White Supremists and Blue Dog Democrats? We're sunk. I blame Sandra Day O'Conner.

    Posted by winyahn at 04/29/2008 @ 08:44am

30. "and those other assholes in the sheets, the Saudis."...."all of these towel-headed morons in the Middle East"?

    So who wrote that, RIO....David Duke?

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 09:07am

31. So, RICHARD KIM, what's wrong? Can't stand it when someone's objective enough to tell it like it is? One of the big problems in this country today is the inability of anyone to look past their own agendas and believe systems and recognize the contributions of "the other side". I'm voting for Obama because he's NOT like that, or at least is trying not to be. Your article, Mr KIM, demonstrates that you are like that. I guess that makes you part of the problem.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/29/2008 @ 09:30am

32. Goya

    Knuckle-dragger conjures the image of a gorilla or chimp or even Neanderthal. A think that is stupid because it lacks a brain as highly developed as a human. No your specific charge against Americans is that they are, "ill-informed, reactionary, selfish, and parochial".

    How does that make them stupid? If I have a desire and I use reason to achieve that desire, doesn't that make me intelligent?

    America has the highest standard of living of any developed country. Instead of punishing the high achievers as some sort or religious sacrifice to appease the poor, we have removed the shackles of our most talented individuals and it has created a wealth of creativity that has improved the lives of the vast majority of citizens.

    But it offends your ideals. You think we should make sacrifices for the poor. Your particular values put the lives of "the least among us" ahead of the comfort of the comfortable.

    So voters are selfish, they voted in their self interest, and it paid off handsomely, yet it offends your sensibilities.

    How does that make voters stupid? How does refusing to sacrifice my comfort for your beliefs make me stupid? Does it work both ways? If I'm a hard-core pro-lifer, will you admit to being stupid because I want you to support my beliefs and vote for pro-life candidate and you refuse to?

    Posted by marybretbrad at 04/29/2008 @ 10:18am

33. "If I have a desire and I use reason to achieve that desire, doesn't that make me intelligent?" <Posted by marybretbrad at 04/29/2008> No, that makes you a cockroach. Please do not underrate the small but sagacious cockroach. They are craftier than most humanoids and will no doubt survive the extinction of our species. (Plus they have a higher aggregate mean on SATs compared to public school completers.)

    "If I have a desire and I use reason to achieve that desire, doesn't that make me intelligent?" <Posted by marybretbrad at 04/29/2008>

    No, that makes you a cockroach. Please do not underrate the small but sagacious cockroach. They are craftier than most humanoids and will no doubt survive the extinction of our species. (Plus they have a higher aggregate mean on SATs compared to public school completers.)

    Posted by goyadad at 04/29/2008 @ 11:43am

34. Posted by goyadad at 04/29/2008

    Gee, goya, good thing you're showing off your superior intellect, instead of just flinging ad hominems instead of answers!

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 11:53am

35. Posted by Marybretbrad:

    "America has the highest standard of living of any developed country."

    Tell that to the Canadians or people who live in the UK and they'll laugh at you.

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 1:19pm

36. Tell that to the Canadians or people who live in the UK and they'll laugh at you.

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008

    Depends on whether you speak with someone with some comparative knowledge or they simply rely upon assumptions.

    I have friends in the UK, have stayed in their homes and I don't find their standard of living to even begin to approach ours.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/29/2008 @ 2:01pm

37. If what you mean by "standard of living" is "space and stuff," Americans certainly have an enviable quality of life. But if you're talking about issues of health and well-being - the infant mortality rate or healthcare, for example - we're shamefully behind some of our peers.

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 2:13pm

38. (But who in Marybretbrad's "middle America" really gives a damn if poor black kids die in infancy at an alarming rate for a 21st century "first-world" nation? They don't want their taxes to go up; they need new televisions).

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 2:35pm

39. (But who in Marybretbrad's "middle America" really gives a damn if poor black kids die in infancy at an alarming rate for a 21st century "first-world" nation? They don't want their taxes to go up; they need new televisions).

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008

    You are an idiot if you actually believe that.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/29/2008 @ 2:41pm

40. 'Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea...on issues of regulation, I think that back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, a lot of the way we regulated industry was top down command and control. We're going to tell businesses exactly how to do things. And I think that the Republican party...came with the notion that you know what, if you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives for businesses, let them figure out how they're going to for example reduce pollution.' -- Barack Obama

    'What I mean is what several of my white friends and several of my white, Jewish friends have written me and said to me. They've said, "You're a Christian. You understand forgiveness. We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." ' -- Jeremiah Wright -- 28 April, 2008

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/29/2008 @ 2:51pm

41. If residents of "middle America," (which doesn't exist, but that's another topic entirely) care, they could show it with their vote. What they've consitently shown, what we've consistently shown as a nation when we go to the polls, is that we care more about our individual comfort than whether our neighbors have food, shelter, and medicine.

    You can prove me wrong -and I hope you will - but you can't do it here. You have to do it out there, in the world, with your vote and your dollar.

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 2:52pm

42. It may be a matter of ignorance rather than malice, but the difference between ignorance and malice is incidental when they have the same effect.

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 2:54pm

43. Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/29/2008

    Darmok and Jalad, at Tenagra!

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 3:18pm

44. Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008

    So basically, if people don't vote the way "Butler" thinks they should...

    they're either stupid or evil?

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 3:20pm

45. Perhaps if I encapsuled everything in >/provocative overstatement/<, we wouldn't have this problem . . .

    Mask, I generally like your posts. Don't do me the disservice of reducing what I say to an absurdity, particularly when I'm arguing for values you espouse.

    Would you deny the GOP's lack of concern for the "have-nots"? Would you deny that Americans, by and large, are ill-informed about the world, and even the individual communities, they live in, and that their voting reflects this sad fact?

    I don't believe Americans are evil or stupid, but I do believe that if we continue to pretend that an "everything is fine so long as I've got mine" is acceptable, we're going to have more folks like W. in the Oval Office.

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 3:35pm

46. My last post should read: an "everything is fine so long as I've got mine" attitude . . .

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 3:36pm

47. Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008

    I'm not the one doing you a disservice, Butler.

    Go back and re-read your posts. I quote-

    "What they've consitently shown, what we've consistently shown as a nation when we go to the polls, is that we care more about our individual comfort than whether our neighbors have food, shelter, and medicine."....."It may be a matter of ignorance rather than malice, but the difference between ignorance and malice is incidental when they have the same effect."

    Now, you are saying that it has been "consistant" (by that I assume you mean the elections) and that the votes are based either on "ignorance" or "malice".

    How ELSE should one interpret your posts EXCEPT as "The people aren't voting the way I think they should...and it's out of stupidity or evilness"?

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 4:20pm

48. Mask, there's a huge difference between stupidity, which describes a lack of capacity to learn, and ignorance, which describes a condition of learning that can be altered.

    "Evilness" isn't even something I believe in, but malice . . . Oh yes, there's malice; there's malice in action when a voter votes Republican because he resents the "welfare queens" that he's been led to believe are the cause for his high taxes (as opposed to say, unparalled military spending). Ignorance and malice are probably always linked, and not because the person embodying them, and who doesn't from time to time?, is stupid or evil.

    How I think people should vote has nothing to do with it. Voting Republican, at least this century, has meant turning one's back on social responsibility in order to have a bigger slice of the pie for oneself. Conservatives don't even shy away from this argument, although they phrase it differently and claim that, in a nutshell, serving one's own interests is the best way to help everyone else (Trickle Down economics, anyone?).

    I think we're dealing with a matter of semantics.

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 4:33pm

49. One clarification seems to be in order: I don't believe voting Republican actually gets a middle class, working American a "bigger slice of the pie," only that it appears to - tax cuts are more tangible than indirect savings in health insurance, tuition costs, etc.

    I vote Democratic because I believe that if we are to move forward we must do so as a whole, and not in fragments. (As someone from the South I can testify to the horrible damage the South did to itself as a whole by specifically targeting, maliciously, African Americans with Jim Crow laws. This set the entire South back a great deal, which is what happens when you fight against education and rights for large sections of your population).

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 4:45pm

50. I think we're dealing with a matter of semantics.

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008

    Ok, then I will give you the benefit of the doubt and consider that your comments merely reflect your ignorance of what conservatives actually believe and practice.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/29/2008 @ 5:59pm

51. Posted by lvliberty1 at 4/29/08

    That's fair. I'd honestly like to hear your version of what conservatives believe and practice; we probably have more in common than would at first be apparent . . .

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 6:04pm

52. Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008

    Well, I tell you, Butler...go to the average Republican voter and "explain" to them that "they're not stupid, just ignorant" or they're being "malicious" if they see some social spending as a failure...or that by not voting Democratic they want to bring back Jim Crow...

    and see how many you win over.

    It's been working SO well for the Left these past 30 years or so!

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 7:59pm

53. That's fair. I'd honestly like to hear your version of what conservatives believe and practice; we probably have more in common than would at first be apparent . . .

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008

    What unfortunately many on the left perceive as conservativism is what the media reports. I have been a lifelong conservative, preaching and living conservative principles and values since I was 10 (that's when I became politically active). In those 50 years, I have railed against both parties, and most especially the Republican party whenever I see them abandon their principles. I have voted 3rd party out of protest (76, 88, 92,96). Nixon, we were fooled by. He was a Rockefeller Republican wearing the anti-communist mantle as a disguise.

    True conservative principles are closely tied with Christian Biblical principles.

    G-d desires all men to live and to be free.

    Freedom is the great vehicle that provides the opportunity to become all that G-d gifts you with. (Epitimized in the Declaration of Independence).

    That small government means more freedom of choice.

    That taxation has some necessary role, but that taxation finds itself always seeking more. It has an unquenchable thirst.

    That the wisdom of our Founders was a small Federal government that could represent our interests globally; defend our sovereignty through a military; could provide a court of last resorts when men cannot agree (Fed judiciary); that it would ensure the free flow of people, goods, and services between the individual states. BTW, that means that Fed highway infrastructure and even national rail is a constitutional mandate (puts me at odds with many Republicans today who have forgotten that).

    That all other powers and authorities not enumerated in the Constitution would be left to the states to determine among themselves.

    That it assumed that those powers and authorities would be unlimited as long as they don't encroach on the sovereign interests on the Republic itself.

    As a conservative, I am certainly also pro-green. I am a subscriber to Mother Earth magazine and believe in the principles shared with many similar people on the left that America is rich in resources and climate that allow us to provide self-sufficiency in so many ways (see my gardening comments). It also means that a true conservative cares about our natural wonders. That within reason, we should protect as we have, through a national parks service areas that are not replaceable. But it is also incumbent upon people to also make an individual investment in these things. When you are personally invested, you take pride and responsibility for things.

    I believe with all my heart in the equality of mankind. That this country provides the greatest opportunity in the world (and I have lived in or visited many countries), for individuals to pursue their dreams and passions. We aren't perfect at it. Mostly because people aren't perfect. In 1962, my father (a John Birch society member for many years) took us on a trip around the US over the course of an entire summer. He deliberately took us into the South to show us the discrimination against Blacks and then proceeded into confrontations to further show us that racism is wrong and must be confronted. That has had a lifelong affect on me. I have pastured primarily churches that are truly rainbow churches with bilingual services. My second marriage (of 22 years) is to a Hispanic woman of color and I have 3 wonderful Black/Hispanic sons.

    As a conservative, I believe that true conservatives seek to see everyone fulfill their dreams without government's undue influence. That acknowledges that some will fail. It accepts that knowing that life itself isn't perfect or perfectly fair.

    As a conservative Christian, I recognize that G-d loves a generous heart and punishes those who do not care for their brother or sister in need. But with that, as a conservative, I believe that personal giving is far better than government compulsion. That said, conservatives recognize that a safety net is a part of good government. It is in agreeing as to what a safety net consists of and where the focus of that safety net is concentrated. Conservatives see it best (but not always) found at the State and local governments.

    Not all inclusive of real conservative principles, but a fairly good overview. Thanks again for asking.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/29/2008 @ 8:58pm

54. Posted by Mask at 4/29/08:

    "It's been working SO well for the Left these past 30 years or so!"

    Point taken. You're right, Mask. This is a poor rhetorical approach, and I intend to change it. Thanks.

    I honestly don't have any animosity for Americans at large, but it's easy to be frustrated as a progressive here (hence the "angry liberal" stereotype, I guess).

    lvliberty1, I haven't gotten to read your post yet, but I will a little later, and I'm looking forward to it. Thanks for making a reply . . .

    Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 9:12pm

55. Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008

    NP, a basic tenet ...one you've heard...something about "flies"..."vinegar"...and "honey"!

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 10:47pm

56. "America has the highest standard of living of any developed country."

    Tell that to the Canadians or people who live in the UK and they'll laugh at you.

    Posted by Butler

    well, it all depends.

    i know canadians who live in boxes and canadians who live in mansions.

    what does "standard of living" mean, anyway?

    happiness does not come in a box.

    well, sometimes in a pizza box.......

    Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:03:00 AM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 12:58am

57. oops, too many boxes.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 12:59am

58. I have friends in the UK, have stayed in their homes and I don't find their standard of living to even begin to approach ours.

    Posted by lvliberty1

    you mean the one that has left you $22,000,000,000,000 in debt?

    hahahahahahahahahahaha

    damn!

    Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:06:16 AM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 01:02am

59. once again, america, once again.

    how is it you always manage to choose the worst possible president?

    and they seem to be getting worser.

    Monday, April 28, 2008 10:31:25 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2008

    That's easy Frosty. Both major political parties in this country are under the thumb of the international corporate world. International corporations have zero allegience to national boundaries nor people of any nation. They have loyalty only to their stock holders and board of directors.

    Motivation by profit is at odds with the well being of the people of this nation. If you don't believe me, look at the ever rising fuel prices. It ain't because of congress. The oil companies are raking the cash in and laughing all the way to the bank.

    Our president has the U.S. navy at his discretion which means he could threaten OPEC nations with a blockade of their product unless they dropped the price of oil. This is nothing more than international price fixing via OPEC and the oil companies. They are going to try to maximize their profits while their buddy "W" is in office.

    So far, none of the candidates running for president have not come forth with any ideas of how they intend to solve our energy / economic crisis at hand.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/30/2008 @ 10:00am

60. So far, none of the candidates running for president have not come forth with any ideas of how they intend to solve our energy / economic crisis at hand.

    Sorry, meant to say, none of the candidates running for presidnet have come forth with any ideas of how they intend to solve our energy / economic problems.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/30/2008 @ 10:03am

61. any ideas of how they intend to solve our energy / economic problems.

    Posted by Wolfgang1

    because if they did, no one would vote for them.

    Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:21:16 AM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 10:17am

62. because if they did, no one would vote for them.

    Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:21:16 AM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008

    Probably true enough. But, even the most lame brained idiots notice that when they are forking out a hundred dollars just to fill their gas tank that their money is going down the toilet.

    I've noticed even republicans riding the bus because they can't afford to drive to work anymore. Now, most of them will still vote to slit their own throats, but sooner or later they will come around. It's either that, or this country will be heading into a depression. Americans can no longer afford to be stupid and vote like their ministers and pastors tell them to vote. They need to start thinking for themsevles and taking note of what is going on in the world.

    The U.S. has a some major bargaining chips that we can still hold over the OPEC countries and one of those bargaining chips is food. Another is protection on the high seas of their products via the U.S. Navy.

    Our last stop that we have is if we were to stop using their oil completely, the OPEC countries would crap their pants.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/30/2008 @ 11:08am

63. VERY GOOD ARTICLE! I've been waiting for one like this - finally seeing Obama as more PRO-GOPper than a Progressive. The very first comment (other than his voting record)was his comments putting Reagan in such a favorable light. Was he trying to reach out to the Bush-established conservatives? He could have just as well said something positive re: Kennedy, or even Bill Clinton while at the same time keeping his distance from his contending adversary. His snuggling up to the GOPpers turned me off.

    The second thing that has turned me away from him is his inability to have convinced me of his sincerity re; the Rev. Wright flak.

    He DID NOT come across as "outraged" as the media described him.

    Actually his once calm, definite manner was not there. He was hesitant in his responses and basically not believable. He had written globs about Rev. Wright in his newly-published book, "Audacity of Hope" - - - and somewhere between it and campaigning in front of the media has turned Barak into something less than hoped for. I would have settled for him stomping his foot or something to show his rage... ...but his dialogue dragged, his phrasing too long, and his repetition with "I mean it" didn't make the grade. In short, some degree of sincerity was missing.

    I'd like to know how he'd react to his first news conference as Commander-in-Chief in the midst of a R-E-A-L crisis.

    ( But BEWARE of the GOPpers: DON'T LET THESE pro-BUSH media tactis ruin him for ANY spot on the Dem ticket!!!)

    Posted by NetProphet at 04/30/2008 @ 11:30am

64. Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/29/200

    It sounds so nice when it's on paper. Then you get the loons like Rio Bravo. I agree with a lot of the Republican platform. My problem is implementation of things. It's why I don't consider myself left or right because I do take things from both sides. You forgot to add that being conservative also means you hate liberals though.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2008 @ 1:00pm

65. <i>republicans on the bus.....</i>

    gonna write me a song.

    Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:58:38 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 1:54pm

66. Dear God. For all you "progressives" out there. Being progressive doesn't mean that you have to reject all Republican ideas. Being progress involves thinking outside the box which means combining Demo and Repub ideas to make new and better ideas. Just because he acknowledges that Republicans have some good ideas does NOT mean he's not progressive. It actually means he is more progressive than the people trumpeting their anti-Republican horns. Being anti-Republican is just politics as usual. It's the typical divisiveness. Reagan managed to get blues and red to vote for him which IS a fundamental change in the way America ran. Obama wants to be a uniter. To unite the parties you have to acknowledge that both sides have good ideas. If you say that your opponent is always wrong you are not going to get them on your side. So stop with this BS about "Oh he acknowledged that Republicans have good ideas, he must not be a progressive." Neither party has a copyright on good ideas as much as both side may like to think it. Both parties come up with equally good and equally bad ideas.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2008 @ 2:01pm

67. Why is it so hard to accept that people would choose to evaluate ideas based on their merit rather than from whom they originate? Being leftist or rightist does not preclude acceptance of the others ideals and believing that any leader should only support one or the other is foolish. Only ideologues do that--those that are close-minded to all but their own way of thinking.

    Posted by takacscj at 04/30/2008 @ 2:23pm

68. Posted by takacscj at 04/30/2008

    Exactly. Leaders should be open minded and accept and evaluate the views of others equally and without prejudice.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2008 @ 3:39pm

69. gonna write me a song.

    Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:58:38 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008

    Frosty, You could steal the idea from the Hollies Bus Stop song.

    You know, the guys out there in a rain storm and he ends up sharing his umbrella with a neocon, but you can always spice it up by making the neocon another guy. The rethugs would love that.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/30/2008 @ 5:32pm

70. Exactly. Leaders should be open minded and accept and evaluate the views of others equally and without prejudice.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2008

    Problem is that the ideas the republicans have come up with have damn near destroyed this country. Most of the dems, meanwhile, have fallen asleep on the job, don't care, are bought off, or just plain don't want to risk their careers in challenging the Bush machine.

    Bottom line is we the public lose.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/30/2008 @ 5:40pm

71. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/30/2008

    No most of the ideas Bush/Cheney have come up. You have to differentiate. Bush and Cheney DO NOT represent the ideas of ALL Republicans. Some Republicans have cosponsored bills with Demos that were good ideas. This is just the mentality of one bad apple spoils the bunch. Not all Repubs agree with Bush/Cheney. I know quite a few who don't. You have to make sure to differentiate in your mind between Bush/Cheney policies and all Repub type policies. Demos have come up with some stupid ideas of their own so we are no better,

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2008 @ 5:47pm

72. Americans can no longer afford to be stupid and vote like their ministers and pastors tell them to vote. They need to start thinking for themsevles and taking note of what is going on in the world.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/30/2008

    I have never tried to tell a congregation who to vote for. First of all, it violates election laws and our non profit status. Secondly, I believe in the independence of voters to vote according to their own conscience.

    My role from the pulpit is to ensure that the values of our faith and the responsibilities of citizenship are adequately taught, including their proper relationship.

    The churches that are most guilty from what I've seen over the many decades I have been politically observant come from liberal churches.

    It seems that no one is ever bothered by their open declarations and endorsements from the pulpit for Democrat candidates.

    No one seems to consider it a problem on the left that Democracy Now, Code Pink and other leftist interests host gatherings in liberal churches.

    But what if conservative organizations were to meet in a church, Barry Lynn would be all over the airwaves complaining. There is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy on the left on this issue.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/30/2008 @ 7:20pm

73. Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/30/2008

    Once again LV you point our your partisanship and lack of true facts beyond your opinion. You are basically making this all up to support your point that liberals are bad and conserves are good. Get over your party man. Face you guys do just as much negative stuff as liberals. Just because you like to think the liberals are demons and do nothing good doesn't make it true. For the record conserves DO talk politics in church I've seen it and some conservatives have political meetings in churches. You guys are no different no matter how much you try to trumpet the horn of superiority.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2008 @ 7:44pm

74. "As Obama pivots to a general election contest against McCain, the pressure on him to drift rhetorically and substantively towards the right will only increase--as does then our own duty to be a dry-eyed and pragmatic left."

    You still haven't shown from the couple of excerps from Fox Nes that Obama is SUBSTANTIVELY shifting to the left.

    Creating incentives for corporations to behave in a socially responsible manner is NOT a right-wing or even moderate position.

    The wing-nuts want NO regulation on business, the moderates want "some" regulation on business, the crazy left wants to tell business people how to run their busness, and the "smart" left, that Obama is part of, wants to create a lot of attractive incentives for businesses to do the socially responsible thing.

    Posted by Metteyya at 04/30/2008 @ 8:10pm

75. There is an element of greed that exists. Extremely wealthy voters who vote Republican so they receive tax cuts. It may not be right but I understand why they do it. It's the people with out a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of that vote Republican that I don't get.

    Posted by koroviev at 05/01/2008 @ 12:27am

76. I have never tried to tell a congregation who to vote for. First of all, it violates election laws and our non profit status. Secondly, I believe in the independence of voters to vote according to their own conscience.

    LivLiberty, So, see we finally agree on something. Churches need to stay out of politics because it is illegal. I don't like seeing democratic candidates addressing constituents in churches nor do I like seeing religious figures on television telling people they will go to hell if they support a candidate who is pro-choice. On both sides, they've crossed the separation of church and state line as well as violating the tax exempt status.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/01/2008 @ 08:13am

77. It may not be right but I understand why they do it. It's the people with out a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of that vote Republican that I don't get.

    Posted by koroviev at 05/1/2008

    Well put.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/01/2008 @ 08:16am

78. It may not be right but I understand why they do it. It's the people with out a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of that vote Republican that I don't get. Posted by koroviev at 05/1/2008

    Well put. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/1/2008

    This is an easy explanation. Groucho Marx (lesser known younger brother to that other political philosopher, Karl) explained it best: "I would never want to belong to a club that would have me for a member." Displaced self-loathing. QED.

    Posted by goyadad at 05/01/2008 @ 2:36pm

79. One thing is the legitimate revolt of a citizen against excessive intrusion of government in his/her life. The other is not addressing social justice issues.

    Our life with government is bad. Our life without it would be worse to worst.

    If Obama says that some Rep ideas are better that means that he would admit that on some Govt. areas we've done inefficiently. I think the assessment is correct but tricky. Is correct because there has been overspending and overlooking on several issues. Its tricky because that is NOT the norm and should not be hold as a general rule. He is conceding that to the Reps though in a political move.

    About merit pay for teachers, I do agree with Obama. Though it is only the teachers'unions that should regulate that. It is ten times harder to get 50% of the classroom with "A's" in a poor neighborhood than in a upper class one. Just the decision of teachers that go to the depressed areas should be compensated somehow.

    I agree that on some issues Obama is not as left as we would wish to, but Hillary is just playing politics.

    Posted by Frank42 at 05/03/2008 @ 4:27pm

80. Tell that to the Canadians or people who live in the UK and they'll laugh at you. Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008

    That's funny because I work with about 25 Canadians here in Charlotte. Most of then say that the taxes in Canada are ridiculous.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 05/04/2008 @ 01:41am

81. Tell that to the Canadians or people who live in the UK and they'll laugh at you. Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008

    That's funny because I work with about 25 Canadians here in Charlotte. Most of then say that the taxes in Canada are ridiculous.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 05/04/2008 @ 01:52am

82. Obama is a strong progressive you can be a strong progressive and be open to other ideas. WHen you know who you are you dont fear being open to new ideas that are contrary to yours its those that dont know who they are that should worry about being around ideas that contradicts there's. If you stick to your values and principles and use common sense you wont go wrong. Its when you let polls and popularity determine where you stand rather than your values and your gut is when you mess up. Obama is real because he uses something that seem to have left a lot of us basic common sense.

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 05/04/2008 @ 3:51pm

83. Gee, I don't want to be a knuckle dragger...maybe if I stand up more better...

    Posted by pyeatte at 05/04/2008 @ 8:27pm