Althouse: "In my opinion, Obama has governed as a moderate conservative — essentially as what used to be called a liberal Republican..."

October 22, 2014

"In my opinion, Obama has governed as a moderate conservative — essentially as what used to be called a liberal Republican..."

"... before all such people disappeared from the GOP. He has been conservative to exactly the same degree that Richard Nixon basically governed as a moderate liberal, something no conservative would deny today."

Writes Bruce Barlett in The American Conservative.

Whatever you think of all that — and Barlett lays out his evidence at length — it will be interesting to see what Obama does when he has to work with a GOP-dominated Congress after the election.

121 comments:

Michael K said...: A reason why I quickly gave up on that magazine.; 10/22/14, 10:11 AM
Lance said...: Today only: a RINO calls the President a DINO!; 10/22/14, 10:13 AM
ron winkleheimer said...: I quit reading at this point.

I wrote a piece for the New Republic soon afterward about the Obamacon phenomenon—prominent conservatives and Republicans who were openly supporting Obama. Many saw in him a classic conservative temperament: someone who avoided lofty rhetoric, an ambitious agenda, and a Utopian vision that would conflict with human nature, real-world barriers to radical reform, and the American system of government.

You. Have. To. Be. Kidding.; 10/22/14, 10:14 AM
Seeing Red said...: Barry avoided lofty rhetoric like oceans receding?; 10/22/14, 10:17 AM
Seeing Red said...: How can The Chicago Way be considered moderate?; 10/22/14, 10:18 AM
Shanna said...: Also, War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.; 10/22/14, 10:19 AM
MayBee said...: Obama's problem is that he really hasn't governed, except for the things that he has to do for self-preservation (like drones).

Any moderation comes from his inaction and the split congress.; 10/22/14, 10:21 AM
traditionalguy said...: He is stuck on stupid asserting Obama is an American President like all the others.

He ignores the evidence that Obama is part international Marxist and part Iranian Muslim who has been diligently ending the USA's world hegemony by any means necessary.

The financial currency bomb and the immigration flood bomb and the ending of cheap of electrical energy generation bomb are all set to go off on a timer like the Demolition by implosion of an old structure.; 10/22/14, 10:21 AM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/22/14, 10:26 AM
Mark said...: Cue the Obama derangement syndrome. Such a shame this cannot be rationally discussed here.; 10/22/14, 10:26 AM
YoungHegelian said...: Actually, while I think in his heart of hearts Obama is a middling social democrat, the great problem of the Obama administration is Obama's inability to lead it.

The lack of leadership engendered a "drift-along" mentality, especially in foreign policy, that simply continued Bush era policies as it sought to wind those policies down. But, in domestic policy, Obama's lack of leadership allowed his underlings to run riot, and many of them did so in all sort of lefty-ways.

The Justice Dept under Holder is conservative? Labor under Perez? HHS under Sebelius? The folks in Education who pushed through the anti-sexual harassment regulations on American universities (I doubt it was Arnie Duncan who pushed those new regs, so that, too, points to an internal left-wing putsch at DofE).

Whatever may or may not happen in the Oval office, the Obama functionary in his/her cubby hole is certainly not a closet conservative.; 10/22/14, 10:27 AM
Gahrie said...: How anyone who shoved Obamacare down America's throat can be described as Conservative baffles me.; 10/22/14, 10:28 AM
Shanna said...: Whatever may or may not happen in the Oval office, the Obama functionary in his/her cubby hole is certainly not a closet conservative

But all of those heads of departments were appointed by Obama. The fish rots from the head and the stuff coming out of his administration is not conservative.; 10/22/14, 10:29 AM
Drago said...: Mark said...
Cue the Obama derangement syndrome. Such a shame this cannot be rationally discussed here

Mark (the lefty) takes time out from labeling any and all criticism of obama policies as "racist" to complain about how obama policies cannot be rationally discussed.

Nice.; 10/22/14, 10:32 AM
MayBee said...: Cue the Obama derangement syndrome. Such a shame this cannot be rationally discussed here.

Ok, discuss.; 10/22/14, 10:32 AM
SGT Ted said...: Bruce Bartlett's column does not square with reality.; 10/22/14, 10:32 AM
Todd said...: it will be interesting to see what Obama does when he has to work with a GOP-dominated Congress after the election.

No it will not. He has a pen and a phone. What more does he need?; 10/22/14, 10:32 AM
Drago said...: Gahrie said...
How anyone who shoved Obamacare down America's throat can be described as Conservative baffles me.

Now that history is delivering it's inevitable and unavoidable verdict on obama policies it's time for those who were taken in to begin the rewrite of history.

It has always been thus.; 10/22/14, 10:33 AM
Curious George said...: "Mark said...
Cue the Obama derangement syndrome. Such a shame this cannot be rationally discussed here."

LOL At least you aren't appalled.; 10/22/14, 10:35 AM
Drago said...: Todd: "No it will not. He has a pen and a phone. What more does he need?"

A driver and a putter, a permanent backstage pass at all the studios as well as a White House budget for extravagant parties.; 10/22/14, 10:35 AM
n.n said...: Classic conservatives were known for their lofty rhetoric and similarly ambitious agenda. They did not, however, suffer from Utopian vision. The American system of government is actually quite a tremendous outcome, despite the numerous compromises required to reach a consensus, and establish a new nation in the face of diverse threats to life, liberty, and happiness of Americans.

Trillion dollar deficits is not American.

Assassinating foreign leaders is not American.

Leaving Americans behind is not American.

Intimidating American citizens is not American.

Open border dreams are not American.

Elective abortion is not American.

America has progressed to become notably left-wing and libertine.; 10/22/14, 10:35 AM
MayBee said...: Obama For America pushed for single payer, and then a "public option". That Obama could not get that, and couldn't push for it himself publicly, does not make him conservative. It simply means he knew enough to know the money and votes for those two options just didn't exist.

But that his mouthpieces pushed for it means it's what he really wanted.; 10/22/14, 10:36 AM
Levi Starks said...: How will Obama deal with the newly elected congress? You've got to be kidding.
It'll be exactly the same as how he deals with the current congress. He'll spend his days hiding from them on the golf course, and his nights hiding from them at high dollar democrat fund raisers.
And if you think its bad now, after the election it's likely he'll loose the senate. We'll be subjected to a 24/7 news cycle of how poor President Obama wants to do so many good things for us, but the mean/evil/racist/homophobic/zenophobic/war-on-women republicans refuse to compromise.
Did you know that among the over 200 pieces of legislation passed by the house, but languishing in the senate there are ones that have passed the house with a near unanimous vote? Harry Reid will not allow any voting to occur, for fear that Obama will be placed in a position of having looked like he compromised with republicans in the house. Oh yes, Obama's a real moderate al right.; 10/22/14, 10:39 AM
traditionalguy said...: The GOP Senate will come face to face with Obama's No Trump card declaring his Presidency alone controls America's currency, immigration enforcement , and electrical generation system with no Congressional laws allowed... or impeach me, sucker!; 10/22/14, 10:40 AM
wildswan said...: I suppose that all the Democrats who won't even say they voted for Obama in the elections are doing that because they now see he has been a conservative Republican all along.

"Extremism in the defense of true freedom (true freedom=socialism) is not wrong" - see?; 10/22/14, 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: His list of Obamacons left out T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII.; 10/22/14, 10:44 AM
Brando said...: I think Bartlett's right that Obama has been policy-wise the heir to Nixon--both favored an active government and expansive executive power, both inherited wars that they have prolonged and expanded, and neither was a friend to civil liberties. Whether this makes Obama (or Nixon) a "conservative" really depends on how you define the term (in a sense, Obama is conservative in that he has resisted genuine reform of the government). To the extent that Obama resembles any previous presidents, I think Nixon is far closer than say Coolidge.

Part of the issue with Obama's signature acheivement (the ACA) isn't so much that it is excessively "socialist"--if anything, it's more corporatist with its entrenchement of the private insurance company model--but that it is unworkable and poorly conceived. A large portion of the anti-ACA coalition is made up of leftists who complain that the ACA isn't socialist enough, and they do have a point--something like single payer would have been more to their liking (not that that wouldn't have its own problems).

How will Obama react if he has a GOP Senate to deal with? I can't imagine him acting any different than he does now. Could he possibly be more dismissive of Congress than he is already?; 10/22/14, 10:54 AM
Dan Hossley said...: It's a silly argument. Both Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge were Republicans, but could hardly be considered philosophical soul mates.

Nixon wasn't conservative. He believed in a big federal government. He believed in wage and price controls....until that proved to be a disaster. His "revenue sharing" scheme is still a bad idea.

So Obama is Nixon, without the foreign policy expertise, that's his point?; 10/22/14, 10:55 AM
Grackle said...: I believe that Obama will be at his most dangerous following this election. What constraints on his behavior can he possibly see? The Congress has not held him in check. The U.S. Supreme Court will not move swiftly nor is their any guarantee of their efficacy if they act at all. He has already purged the senior officers of the military and armed the multifarious federal agencies So what then are the restraints on his behavior? I am not seeing them, and I doubt he is either. Cue up Executive Amnesty and deploy after the November election. These may well be the late days of the Republic. And, oh, yes - he has a an army of true believers in the form of the mainstream press to spin, deny and avoid reporting that casts him in a negative light.; 10/22/14, 10:56 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Bruce Bartlett nailed George W. Bush's economic prolificacy in "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy" and accurately predicted that the Bush Great Recession would result from those policies.

So, he has a better track record than 99% of the political pundits around here.; 10/22/14, 10:56 AM
garage mahal said...: Why can't Obungler find common ground with people that need to see his birth certificate? WHY CAN'T HE LEAD.; 10/22/14, 10:58 AM
Jaq said...: The problem that liberals have is they have damaged their brand so much they are looking for a new one. Conservative comes to mind. They are the "true conservatives."; 10/22/14, 10:58 AM
traditionalguy said...: If Obama is really a traditional American patriot, he better start acting like one. His Transform America Presidency is another way of saying plans to destroy existing America to make room for hierarchical empire that makes him proud.; 10/22/14, 11:01 AM
MayBee said...: according to Wiki: He [Bartlett] compared the second Bush to Richard M. Nixon as "two superficially conservative presidents who enacted liberal programs to buy votes for reelection."[7]
-----

So....Obama hasn't done this? Obama care, expansion of foodstamps, extension of unemployment benefits, birth control coverage mandates, deportation restrictions, increasing expensive regulations from the EPA, etc?

How is he being consistent with himself?; 10/22/14, 11:03 AM
Unknown said...: Right. Because Obamacare is conservative.

That's why it was shoved through, in the dead of night, ON PARTY LINE VOTE, using manipulative maneuvers, without the support of even ONE Republican.; 10/22/14, 11:03 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: I think the big problem is the frame of reference. There is a statist assumption that government expansion is the norm. Expect it to grow faster under liberals, and slower under conservatives, but standing still us unthinkable, let alone shrinking.

So when George W. Bush expands Medicaid prescription coverage, he doesn't get labeled an extreme leftist for expanding government healthcare farther than any previous president. He's a conservative, because he didn't expand it far enough fast enough.; 10/22/14, 11:03 AM
Henry said...: I think what Obama shows us is that ideology is less important than methodology.

I care less about the color of the ends than the stench of the means.; 10/22/14, 11:05 AM
RecChief said...: I'm not sure that Obama is like either a liberal republican or a conservative democrat. I think he is an Obamaist. Sure he has some far left positions, Climate Change for example, but these positions are arrived at following a calculus dominated by how he perceives and is influenced by the true believers around him. Look at his changing position on gay marriage. He didn't lead that change in America, he rode the tail end of the wave. It's why his "lead from behind" comment is telling. As well as "Dont' do stupid shit". He is simply navigating from one potential pothole to another. It's why the White House lied about a volunteer staffer hiring a prostitute in a place where that isn't even illegal. His presidency is about avoiding hard choices and clear cut positions so that he can pivot if the winds change. Look at his stance on the deficit. Look at his speeches, after he says "Let me be perfectly Clear," what follows is usually vague mush. He is just trying to get to the endwithout something major blowing up that hurts his popularity numbers in teh polls so that he has a legacy. And at the end, the taxpayers will take care of him in his retirement, where he can go back to being a community organizer like Jimmy Carter and Al Sharpton rolled into one person.; 10/22/14, 11:06 AM
dreams said...: To the extent Obama has governed conservatively if he really has, its because of his lack of work experience of any kind and his aversion to making hard decisions as in voting present. I don't see him as a natural leader but as someone who has benefited from his race and the college quota system. His first decision, his choice of Biden as his vice president was very conventional, a safe choice from someone who lacked any real knowledge or understanding.

He left it to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to do Obamacare while he did what he has done his whole life which is to go with the flow.; 10/22/14, 11:09 AM
PB said...: You really have to bend over backwards and stick your head up your ass to classify Obama as a conservative. To try and claim deficit reduction is a result of Obama's actions is to completely ignore the fact that he lost control of the House (and in effect Congress) in 2010 and just as happened when Clinton lost control of the House, he had opposition that tempered spending plans.

Comparison to Nixon? Obama's a far worse criminal.

It was always a bad idea to elevate Chicago politics to the national level.; 10/22/14, 11:10 AM
traditionalguy said...: Nixon threatened Russia with a nuclear war and overnight sent a fleet of C-130s loaded with tank and anti-tank ammunition that single handedly saved millions of Israeli Jews from sudden brutal extermination when Egypt and Syria started, and Jordan joined them in a three front surprise attack in October, 1973 on Yom Kippur.

Obama would just send Biden to attend their funerals if their bodies could be found.; 10/22/14, 11:12 AM
n.n said...: Ignorance is Bliss:

It's well reasoned to distinguish between contributory (e.g. Medicare) and non-contributory (e.g. Medicaid) entitlements. However, while it is important to note the sponsors of corruption, it is equally important to observe the consequences of compensation. Unfortunately, the corruption is progressive, and so too is compensation.; 10/22/14, 11:12 AM
n.n said...: American conservatism is not necessarily "small government". American conservatism is a reasoned separation of public and private domains. American government is a hybrid of classical liberal and Judeo-Christian principles.; 10/22/14, 11:15 AM
MayBee said...: So when George W. Bush expands Medicaid prescription coverage, he doesn't get labeled an extreme leftist for expanding government healthcare farther than any previous president.

I think Bartlett would argue GWB is a leftist. His point of reference seems for Republicanism seems to be Reagan and GHWB, only.

But I don't see Obama following their legacy at all.; 10/22/14, 11:15 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: In Europe and Canada, liberals and conservatives have openly banded together in opposition to socialists.

In truth, that was the Nixon coalition, the Reagan coalition, and the Bush coalition.

The proof is the conservatives who insist on calling themselves Conservatives rather than Republicans.; 10/22/14, 11:25 AM
Unknown said...: "The American Conservative" despite its name, is a paelocon crypto-fascist, anti Semitic and anti-non white European rag run by a Hitler apologist (Pat Buchanan) and a drug using bigot (Taki).; 10/22/14, 11:33 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: 091053JG said...
"The American Conservative" despite its name, is a paelocon crypto-fascist, anti Semitic and anti-non white European rag run by a Hitler apologist (Pat Buchanan) and a drug using bigot (Taki).

So, a typical right-wing rag?; 10/22/14, 11:38 AM
RecChief said...: "AReasonableMan said...
Bruce Bartlett nailed George W. Bush's economic prolificacy in "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy" and accurately predicted that the Bush Great Recession would result from those policies.
"

The problem with that analysis is that quite a few of us conservatives freaked out at the profligate spending of the Bush years, not to mention the Patriot Act. But if Bush bankrupted America, what do you say of the fact that Obama's administration has added more to the national debt than Bush's? Or the fact that Barney Frank pushed for lowered standards for home lending? lest you think this is an anti- Democrat Party comment. I might remind you that the GOP went along when they controlled congress. And they are doing the same thing with subprime car loans right now. Both Parties.

You deplore the TEA Party but what was that in response to? A mortgage bailout. But it came on the heels of TARP, that happened during Bush's presidency. I think Rick Santelli's rant was in response to, not so much the mortgage bailout, but that politicians were spending other people's money to bail out large financial institutions..again. It was a recognition that ALL politicians, regardless if the are D or R, are beholden to big money, big donors means big access to righting laws, no matter what rhetoric they use about the "little guy" or "Main street". There really isn't much difference between D or R when it ocmes to ever more intrusive government. It's why AirBnB, Uber, Lyft, and food trucks have such a hard time penetrating markets, because if you are a politician, who are you actually going to listen to when writing legislation? the large taxicab companies? or the single stand alone providers at Uber?

I think that, with that recognition, many people thought about what the envisioned purview of the federal government was, embodied in the constitution. It's why Tea Partiers cleave so closely to that document.; 10/22/14, 11:39 AM
jr565 said...: uh... no.; 10/22/14, 11:40 AM
jr565 said...: "I wrote a piece for the New Republic soon afterward about the Obamacon phenomenon—prominent conservatives and Republicans who were openly supporting Obama. Many saw in him a classic conservative temperament: someone who avoided lofty rhetoric, an ambitious agenda, and a Utopian vision that would conflict with human nature, real-world barriers to radical reform, and the American system of government."
Yeah, people like Chris Buckley. Dumb ass was so spectacularly wrong he voted himself out of a career.; 10/22/14, 11:46 AM
SteveR said...: "whatever it is, I'm against it"; 10/22/14, 11:48 AM
Unknown said...: AReasonableMan said...

091053JG said...
"The American Conservative" despite its name, is a paelocon crypto-fascist, anti Semitic and anti-non white European rag run by a Hitler apologist (Pat Buchanan) and a drug using bigot (Taki).

So, a typical right-wing rag?
__________________________________

There is nothing right wing about it (unless you are referring to the Old Right). It is an isolationist, racialist (note the term "racialist" not "racist"), anarcho-capitalist rag, many of whose writers wold be equally right at home at an Occupy Wall Street demonstration as they would be at a Tea Party one.

TAC is matched by Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, and The Nation - all neo-Stalinist.; 10/22/14, 11:49 AM
jr565 said...: Liberals aren't going to read Chris Buckley because they are liberals. And now conservatives aren't going to read Chris Buckley, because he's retarded.

Heckuva Job, Chris.; 10/22/14, 11:49 AM
Achilles said...: n.n said...
"American conservatism is not necessarily "small government". American conservatism is a reasoned separation of public and private domains. American government is a hybrid of classical liberal and Judeo-Christian principles."

This is not the principal the country was founded on. The government was much more limited at the start. Conservatives and progressives keep taking turns making government bigger.

The last thing bush accomplished before losing 2006 was passing a new entitlement. Victory for compassionate conservatism eh?

The republican party is worse for this country than the Democrats. At least the Democrats are somewhat honest about their goals.; 10/22/14, 11:51 AM
Unknown said...: "
This is not the principal the country was founded on. The government was much more limited at the start."
The country was a fraction of the size and population it is today and the vast majority of citizens were living on farms.; 10/22/14, 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: The Republican Party used to have liberals in it. Therefore, liberals are moderate conservatives. Is that about right?; 10/22/14, 11:55 AM
RecChief said...: The country was a fraction of the size and population it is today and the vast majority of citizens were living on farms."

Complete NOn Sequitor; 10/22/14, 12:09 PM
Anonymous said...: King Putt is whatever you want him to be.

His political opponents want him to be a radical. His friends want him to be either a progressive or a moderate. Doesn't matter, if you like the guy, it's easy to see how he can fit any category you want to put on him.

Why?

Because he's an empty suit, waiting for you to fill it up.

This is a guy who called his wife, Michelle, Michael, presumably because the teleprompter spelled her name wrong. Seriously?

He wants to be the king. He wants to feel your love and adulation. To be a star. And he is. Dream fulfilled.

The rest are details for those he hired, the peons, to figure out.

Don't hurt yourself trying to figure out this guys political philosophy. He doesn't have one. His philosophy is, "I'm epic, love me."; 10/22/14, 12:10 PM
RecChief said...: There is only one duty that the federal government is mandated to perform in the Constitution. It's in Article IV Section IV. care to guess what it is?`; 10/22/14, 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...: As for dealing with the new Congress?

I suspect Democrats will be very upset.

Does anyone remember all the times Obama promised to veto something and then signed it anyway?

We will hear that a lot from King Putt. The Republicans will say, "We're going to do this." and he will say, "I will veto it."

And when it reaches his desk, he'll sign it. Why?

Because he doesn't care. Really. He doesn't.

I predict, if the Republicans take the legislator completely, it'll be the Republican show for the next two years with an Obama rubber stamp. Because he will want the path of least resistance.; 10/22/14, 12:16 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: So, a typical right-wing rag?

From the comments I read over there the readers seem to hate George Bush, like Barack Obama and love big government. Not exactly what I would expect from a "right-wing rag".; 10/22/14, 12:22 PM
Anthony said...: It's mostly a matter of the degree of elitist/statist someone is, not how 'conservative' or 'liberal'. Obama is a dyed-in-the-wool elitist and statist. Bush II was pretty much a statist. Ditto Nixon. Coolidge, not so much.; 10/22/14, 12:25 PM
n.n said...: Achilles:

The Republican Party is not worse in principle, but certainly in exceptions. The Democrat Party is worse in principle and exceptions, especially when they create moral hazards through selective exclusion.

The Democrats are also not more honest about their goals. They obfuscate their goals of denigrating individual dignity and devaluing human life through monetary and emotional inducements, among other incentives and commissions of fraud.

While both parties are unsatisfactory, it is notable that Republicans as a party and individuals have more difficulty escaping accountability. That alone is a valuable asset of a governing body. Ideally, we will have competing interests to ensure honest people remain honest and others will not run amuck.; 10/22/14, 12:26 PM
Robert Cook said...: Bruce Bartlett states what is plain. Anyone who sees Obama as anything other than a moderate or slightly liberal Republican is either so far right their perspective is distorted or is passively accepting the characterizations of Obama as "liberal" or, more ludicrous, "far left," without once looking at his actual polices, governance, or advisors.; 10/22/14, 12:26 PM
Robert Cook said...: "He ignores the evidence that Obama is part international Marxist and part Iranian Muslim who has been diligently ending the USA's world hegemony by any means necessary."

Talk about "ludicrous" and "distorted perspective." If this is not snark, it is insane.

(And who says the USA has a right to establish or maintain world hegemony, or that our actions over the decades to achieve world hegemony have been a good thing...for the world or for the USA?); 10/22/14, 12:30 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Right. Because Obamacare is conservative."

Of course it is, in that it creates a legal requirement that people buy a service from private vendors.

Wouldn't the Walton family fucking love to have a law passed requiring all who live near a Wal-Mart store make a portion of their household purchases from Wal-Mart?; 10/22/14, 12:34 PM
Robert Cook said...: The Justice Dept under Holder is conservative?

No...it is radical...rightwing. It serves the interest of Wall Street and the big banks exclusively, and is punitive to working Americans and government insiders who would tell the public the truth.

But...today's "conservatives," so-called, are what were once considered the lunatic fringe of the Republican party, the John Birchers and so on. So...in this light, the Holder Justice Department is surely "conservative," as presently defined.; 10/22/14, 12:38 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Robert Cook said...
Bruce Bartlett states what is plain. Anyone who sees Obama as anything other than a moderate or slightly liberal Republican is either so far right their perspective is distorted or is passively accepting the characterizations of Obama as "liberal" or, more ludicrous, "far left," without once looking at his actual polices, governance, or advisors.

I don't think Obama is a liberal Republican because that is a party label. He is unquestionably a moderate. He has reversed relatively few policies in place during the Bush regime.; 10/22/14, 12:42 PM
Henry said...: Robert Cook wrote: Of course it is, in that it creates a legal requirement that people buy a service from private vendors.

I see we have a definitional problem.

Which is why the Bartlett piece itself is punk.; 10/22/14, 12:42 PM
Drago said...: garage mahal: "Why can't Obungler find common ground with people that need to see his birth certificate? WHY CAN'T HE LEAD?"

Ask your fellow dems. Of course, most of them have a little more education than your traditional back woods WI high school, so it's not surprising even they get it when you do not.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/senate-democratic-officials-start-lashing-out-at-white-house-20141022

It's ok though garage.

I hear there are online courses you can take to up your game.

Potentially.; 10/22/14, 12:51 PM
Drago said...: Henry (to Cook): "I see we have a definitional problem."

You'll find that there are always definitional problems between marxists like Cookie and everyone else.; 10/22/14, 12:52 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Trillion dollar deficits is not American."

If it serves the interests of the financial elites who run this dump, it is.

"Assassinating foreign leaders is not American."

It has been for over 60 years, bub, though we more commonly work behind the scenes to have foreign leaders overthrown by tyrants who are friends with Washington.

"Leaving Americans behind is not American.

Who has been left behind, where? Given how many working Americans are being left behind in our "only-for-the-elites" economy, this is purely in line with American history and tradition.

"Intimidating American citizens is not American."

Read some history; it is as American as (rotten) apple pie!

"Open border dreams are not American."

What's that on the Statue of Liberty?

"...her name Mother of Exiles... her mild eyes command...
'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'"

"Elective abortion is not American."

Sez who? Why not? Given how many Americans die every year for want of health care, and given how overwhelmingly Americans support legal abortion, how can we consider abortion either legally or morally "unAmerican?"; 10/22/14, 12:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Bruce Bartlett states what is plain. Anyone who sees Obama as anything other than a moderate or slightly liberal Republican is either so far right their perspective is distorted or is passively accepting the characterizations of Obama as "liberal" or, more ludicrous, "far left," without once looking at his actual polices, governance, or advisors.

Reasonable people can disagree because no one knows the heart of the man.

What can be said for sure about King Putt is that he's a Democrat, and those who oppose him and his policies are Republicans.; 10/22/14, 12:58 PM
Tank said...: Remember when Paglia referred to her libertarian self? This reminds me of that.; 10/22/14, 12:59 PM
Robert Cook said...: "I see we have a definitional problem."

That's exactly the point. The terms "conservative" and "liberal," "left" or "right," are meaningless today, so abused have they become, twisted beyond sense, claimed by (or hurled at) those who bear no relation to the respective terms.; 10/22/14, 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...: ARM writes;

"
I don't think Obama is a liberal Republican because that is a party label. He is unquestionably a moderate. He has reversed relatively few policies in place during the Bush regime."

That's the problem with you unreasonable progressives, you never question those you fall in love with.

Regardless, many of us do question your assertion that he is a moderate.

One thing is unquestionable, however. He is a Democrat.

And those who oppose him and his policies are Republicans.; 10/22/14, 1:00 PM
Robert Cook said...: "What can be said for sure about King Putt is that he's a Democrat, and those who oppose him and his policies are Republicans."

This is true, but today's Republicans are not, with rare individual exception, conservative, and today's Democrats are not, with rare indiviual exception, liberal.

Neither party serves the American people.; 10/22/14, 1:03 PM
phantommut said...: One point I will concede is that Obama does approach the Presidency in pretty much the same way Nixon did.

-- The Good Mark; 10/22/14, 1:07 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: I think moderate conservatives would disagree. Maybe ask a few.; 10/22/14, 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Kagan and Sotomayor: they're just like Rehnquist, Powell and Burger! (OK, I admit you got me as to Blackmun, but come on. Blackmun, like so many other GOP appointments, veered left after being expected to be conservative.); 10/22/14, 1:10 PM
Known Unknown said...: I could argue that Obama has not governed as a progressive at all, but as a compromised progressive, beholden to monied interests on Wall Street, who still are capable of wealth-generation despite the obsolescence of the middle class.

Insurance companies were on-board with Obamacare distinctly because it gives them guaranteed business for a time.

He has become the ultimate crony capitalist.; 10/22/14, 1:14 PM
Rusty said...: ""In my opinion, Obama has governed as a moderate conservative — essentially as what used to be called a liberal Republican...""

You'd be wrong but everyone is entitled to their opinion.; 10/22/14, 1:22 PM
Rusty said...: Uh oh. Comrade Bob is waxing conspiratorial.

I think I'll go to Protien Wisdom for awhile.; 10/22/14, 1:25 PM
Brando said...: Obama is certainly left-of-center, but I think he fits more as a corporatist than a socialist. Consider that his ACA gives more power to a government/insurance company partnership, and his bailouts and stimuluses drew favored business in closer with government. He is certainly not a free marketer though. And his civil liberties record is deplorable.

Not for lack of trying, his record as a leftist isnt' very successful--the ACA as noted was more a corporatist mess than a Medicare-like entitlement, his stimulus did contain a lot of corporatist-style tax cuts (rather than across the board cuts), and his tax increase was, if anything, a limitation on what was already baked in the law (we would have had ALL rates revert to the 2001 level in 2010, instead only the top rates increased, and not until 2012--if you want to blame anyone for the sunset blame the people who first passed it and assumed it would never be rolled back). Cap and trade died in Congress, as did Card Check, and minimum wage hike isn't happening. Dodd Frank, while a lousy, ineffectual law, is nothing like the left-wing wish list to break up large banks. They have a point about Obama being a tool of Wall Street (though again, none of this makes him a free marketer so much as an incompetent corporatist).

One other thing about the Nixon comparison--Nixon may have taken a few years to end the Vietnam War, but he did end it, and didn't start new wars as Obama has (and without Congressional authorization!). We can never know if Nixon would have used unchecked drone strikes to do what is too risky for the Air Force jets to do, but that's only because the drones didn't exist back then.; 10/22/14, 1:28 PM
Michael K said...: "The GOP Senate will come face to face with Obama's No Trump card declaring his Presidency alone controls America's currency, immigration enforcement , and electrical generation system with no Congressional laws allowed... or impeach me, sucker!"

The one thing they can do is to stop (hopefully) Obama's packing of the Supreme Court like Reid did with the DC Circuit. They can also pass legislation and see if he vetoes it. Reid has kept the lid on for years.

It's not much but it is something.

The lefties who support Obama's regime are mostly indulging in self congratulation that the black guy isn't so bad. Nobody expects him to do well. He turned the ACA over to Pelosi and Reid and their army of lobbyists. His executive branch appointments have been awful but that's who Democrats are these days.

Hagel is an idiot but Gates and Panetta were traditional Secretaries. The Obama people have weeded out most senior generals with any independence and we will pay a price for that.

On Economics, we have the left in charge.

Bush was no bargain but I haven't really been happy with anybody since Reagan. Clinton could take advice. Obama is in another world.; 10/22/14, 1:30 PM
Michael K said...: "Obama is certainly left-of-center, but I think he fits more as a corporatist than a socialist."

I agree with this. Mussolini would be proud of these guys.; 10/22/14, 1:32 PM
Henry said...: Robert Cook wrote: That's exactly the point. The terms "conservative" and "liberal," "left" or "right," are meaningless today, so abused have they become, twisted beyond sense, claimed by (or hurled at) those who bear no relation to the respective terms.

and

today's Republicans are not, with rare individual exception, conservative, and today's Democrats are not, with rare indiviual exception, liberal.

I totally agree.

It seems to me that Bartlett defines "moderate conservative" as "things government does." This is slightly different from Paul Krugman's definition of liberal as "things Obama does," but not really. Our government is a kind of giant mechanical wrangle where one genius hears the clanging of the machine and claims that the president is just like the last one, while the other genius rhapsodizes about its shiny new paint job.; 10/22/14, 1:36 PM
Brando said...: One more thing--I didn't read Paul Krugman's defense of Obama's "successful" presidency, as I think Krugman is an overrated moron who may have once been smart but has now become a leading hack. But even from the perspective of a leftist I cannot understand how anyone could call this presidency "successful." The only things he has accomplished in the domestic sphere were, according to the left:

1) Continuing Bush's bailouts of big banks, rather than restricting or breaking them up, with Dodd Frank window dressing;

2) A stimulus that was a giveaway to big contractors and a series of tax cuts, which leftists believe don't help the economy as much as spending increases;

3) The ACA, which (from a leftist perspective) was too right wing, in that it preserved the private insurance market and if anything forced individuals to sign up with evil insurance companies, and still made employees dependent on employers for health care (or did this even more so than before).

4) Delayed the sunset of the Bush tax cuts for two years, then made them permanent for all incomes below $400K, which amounts to a tax cut for even the wealthy (as the tax rates are progressive, so even millionaires saw a cut on their first $400K, compared to the full repeal that was baked into Bush's law).

Absolutely nothing else of significance was passed, particularly post 2010.

Then in the foreign policy sphere, Gitmo is still open, torture is still happening, we're still illegally bombing other countries, extending our stay in Afghanistan, tried to stay beyond Bush's timetable in Iraq, drone strikes, NSA spying, etc.

And on top of that, the incompetence displayed at the IRS, VA, Secret Service, and Obamacare rollout all displayed government as ineffectual or corrupt, making people more suspicious of government than ever before.

How on earth can any leftist look at this record and call it successful?; 10/22/14, 1:37 PM
Brando said...: "I agree with this. Mussolini would be proud of these guys."

I think the Il Duce comparison is apt--obviously Obama hasn't had large numbers of political opponents murdered or anything like that, but his contempt for legal processes and faith in the power of the state in conjunction with favored corporations fits a Mussolini-lite model.; 10/22/14, 1:39 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Michael K said...

They can also pass legislation and see if he vetoes it. Reid has kept the lid on for years.

Not unless they go super-nuclear and end the filibuster for legislation.; 10/22/14, 1:40 PM
Brando said...: "The one thing they can do is to stop (hopefully) Obama's packing of the Supreme Court like Reid did with the DC Circuit. They can also pass legislation and see if he vetoes it. Reid has kept the lid on for years."

If the GOP is smart, and they take the Senate, they'll concentrate on passing very popular legislation, and continue to build popular support for that legislation. Sure, Obama could veto it, but it will get Democrats on record as for it (helping override the veto) or against it (setting themselves up against something popular for the next election). The key will also be doing what they can to make their most vulnerable incumbents bump their numbers for 2016, as well as preventing the Democratic nominee for president in 2016 from being able to scare voters with the idea of the GOP running the whole government (as Clinton did in '96).

Their worse case scenario is going off the rails, passing legislation unpopular with moderates or conducting ridiculous investigations that turn off the middle, enabling the Dems to not only win the presidency but one or both houses of Congress in 2016.; 10/22/14, 1:44 PM
Michael K said...: "And on top of that, the incompetence displayed at the IRS,"

I don't agree that it was incompetence. The VA, yes. The CDC, yes. But the IRS has been weaponized and is acting as an arm of the DNC.

DoJ isn't incompetence. It has an agenda and people like Thomas Perez know exactly what they want.; 10/22/14, 1:45 PM
Brando said...: "Not unless they go super-nuclear and end the filibuster for legislation."

I'm sure if they did that the New York Times would have whiplash from deciding once again that the fillibuster is an important tool of democracy, as they thought ten years ago.; 10/22/14, 1:45 PM
Brando said...: "I don't agree that it was incompetence. The VA, yes. The CDC, yes. But the IRS has been weaponized and is acting as an arm of the DNC."

Remember Obama's official line is that he and his administration didn't know what was happening at IRS. So they have to admit to high level corruption, or gross incompetence in running one of the key federal agencies. Neither of which makes big government look good.; 10/22/14, 1:47 PM
Michael K said...: "They can also pass legislation and see if he vetoes it. Reid has kept the lid on for years.

Not unless they go super-nuclear and end the filibuster for legislation."

That's OK. They can get smart for a change and pass good legislation, like something that makes Obamacare optional, and see if the Dems filibuster. I'm not sure they will. There are things that both sides, at least a few, will agree on. Dodd-Frank is a mess. That CPSC is another outrage.

The House has been frustrated by Reid who has been able to maintain the fiction that they are doing nothing. Let's see what happens.; 10/22/14, 1:49 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Barlett went off the rails after W was elected. Seriously off the rails. Barlett is now a 'pro-socialism' conservative.; 10/22/14, 1:51 PM
Brando said...: The most important issue for the Senate in the next two years is the possibility of a Supreme Court vacancy. There are some very old Justices on the bench, and with Reid running the Senate, expect the fillibuster to go away and he would ram through whoever Obama picks. And I can't remember the last time a Democrat picked a justice who didn't turn out to be at the left of the Court (except arguably Byron White).

A GOP Senate means anyone Obama picks would have to be at least reasonably acceptable to the GOP.; 10/22/14, 1:54 PM
RecChief said...: "Of course it is, in that it creates a legal requirement that people buy a service from private vendors."

That's not conservative. nor is your walton family example.; 10/22/14, 1:57 PM
carrie said...: They must be really desperate if they are trying to spin Obama like that. He has governed as a despot.; 10/22/14, 2:01 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Obama basically believes solutions to every problem should come from the fed govt.

So Bartlett is full of soup if he thinks that is a conservative mindset.; 10/22/14, 2:04 PM
RecChief said...: I maintain that Obama's thought process is more along the lines of whatever is good for BHO is good for America.; 10/22/14, 2:07 PM
Marty said...: Those who have clued into Mr. Obama being part of the clerisy of what I call the rent-seeker/"progressive" (i.e., corporatist) axis are much more aware of history than poor Mr. Bartlett. Instapundit gets this when he calls Mr. Obama "the president from Goldman Sachs." Mr. Cook is accurate in his observation that in our current historic turbulence older definitions of "left" and "right," "liberal" and "conservative" have much less meaning. Prof. Walter Russell Mead's writings on the transformations of the classical liberal policy perspective are the most informative about this phenomenon that I've found. We must always be on guard against the human tendency towards tyranny, a much older dynamic than our tendency toward self-governance and individual dignity.; 10/22/14, 2:15 PM
Achilles said...: RecChief said...
"Of course it is, in that it creates a legal requirement that people buy a service from private vendors."

"That's not conservative. nor is your walton family example."

So does this mean conservative is a general dislike for government interference? Or only in certain cases?; 10/22/14, 4:02 PM
Carl Pham said...: Why would there be any difference? Obama has never seriously tried to work with Congress. Can anyone imagine Obama working the phones, calling up freshman Congressmen and n00b Senators, badgering and cutting deals for votes, like LBJ? Ha ha ha.

His only signature achievement, Obamacare, was rammed through by a handful of Democratic leaders in both houses, and very probably much to the chagrin of the rank and file even within his own party. Since then...nada, squat. Everything of significance his Administration has done has been by Executive fiat, and he has relied on Harry Reid only to keep Congress paralyzed, lest it inject some other direction or stumbling block.

None of this has to change after the Rs take control of the Senate. It's true the GOP can pass various kinds of symbolic legislation -- like repealing Obamacare -- but the President will just veto it, because he doesn't care, and the Rs will not acquire 60 votes in the Senate. In principle the House could draw a hard line and refuse to pass enabling legislation to e.g. pay for Obamacare -- but they could've done that in the past two years already, and they didn't. They won't. They lack the courage.

So...nothing at all will change, except that there will be more symbolic legislation passed, and probably more show-trial hearings. (Holder was wise to get out when he did: he was sufficiently toxic and evil even a fat-assed Republican Senate with the like of Pat Roberts might've impeached him.)

Don't kid yourself. You're no longer living in a republic, no more than Romans circa AD 1. The fact that there's a pro forma advise and consent, and a lot of sound and fury around election time, doesn't change the fact that you're essentially being governed by an elected dictator, acting with the consent of a relative handful of top advisers.; 10/22/14, 4:13 PM
traditionalguy said...: No one can classify Obama. That's because on the surface he does whatever raises money from billionaires which is very GOP like, while he pretends to fight for liberal causes which is very Dem like.

But Obama will not compromise on the liberal causes. It is all Obama's way or nothing. He thus can use the set up rejection of liberal causes as an excuse and blame the GOP of refusing to cooperate.

Confused yet? Everybody that wants Obama to be a good American President is confounded by six years of this method.

So the answer is he must have been running out the clock until the three bombs he has carefully rigged are triggered. 1) the dollar is replaced as World Reserve Currency causing a stock market collapse and bank failures and pension plan Bankruptcies. 2) despite tripled prices electrical energy short falls and has to be rationed along with foods to those favored. 3) The 60,000,000 new immigrants get to rule what was once theirs and establish an independent area ruled by an Hispanic Viceroy where English is not spoken.; 10/22/14, 4:14 PM
Skyler said...: I think what he meant is that this is what democrats want moderate conservatism to be like.

Because communism is no longer radical to the democrats.; 10/22/14, 4:19 PM
Carl Pham said...: Note: I didn't say a psychotic dictator. The beautt of the modern Information Age is that it allows a dictator to do only that which does not threaten his ability to hold onto power. He needn't make dumb mistakes -- getting involved in a land war in Asia, say, or going against a Sicilian when death is on the line -- that might destroy him. If Mussolini or Octavian could've had these tools, they could have established thousand-year dynasties.

The important distinction between a republic and a dictatorship is not whether people are being herded into camps or forced to do terrible things -- that's evidence of a failed dictatorship, one that's doomed. The successful dictatorship is one that adheres to the will of the majority when it must, and manipulates it when it can, and works under its notice otherwise to get done what it wants to do. It is consistent with what most people want, most of the time, and that's how it escapes revolution.

What's noticeable is what happens to those who are out of step with the majority, who reject "consensus," take unpopular positions, live lives that appall most good citizens. In the true republic, these irritants must be tolerated, and there is an elaborate social mythology (traditions of "free speech" et cetera) that fortifies people in their tolerance.; 10/22/14, 4:27 PM
Skyler said...: "So when George W. Bush expands Medicaid prescription coverage, he doesn't get labeled an extreme leftist for expanding government healthcare farther than any previous president."

I've been calling Bush an extreme socialist for 14 years now. I think he is generally honest, for a politician, but his policies like his father's are extreme socialism and his ability to win a war is just as inept and follows the extreme liberal mindset of ensuring nobody blames us for hurting anyone as a more important value than victory.

Obama, on the other hand, is an extreme leftist communist.

Reagan was a moderate socialist, but he's the best President we've had in fifty years.; 10/22/14, 4:29 PM
Achilles said...: What people are starting to figure out here finally is that we are way past the point where electing republicans will fix what is wrong. They have proven themselves failures. The base of the word Republican is republic, but if you asked most republicans what a Republic is you would probably get a comedy reel.

The reason we are having these arguments is because not so long ago we have started referring to the US as a democracy. We are not. We are a Republic. We were never meant to be able to vote away our rights. We were never meant to be able to vote to take away other people's money and certainly not more than half my income. We weren't supposed to vote on who can get married. Abortion is mentioned 0 times in the constitution. Sorry conservatives it is not intended to be a federal issue at all.

Democracy is by definition tyranny of the majority. The founders despised democracy. We were intended to have a small limited federal government founded as a representative republic. Both parties are undermining this.; 10/22/14, 4:43 PM
Michael K said...: "It is consistent with what most people want, most of the time, and that's how it escapes revolution."

If Hitler had not come along, Mussolini would have died rich and in power.

I disagree that Reagan was a Socialist. He had a Congress that had not had a Republican majority since 1948. Bob Dole did what he could to ambush Reagan's tax plan by delaying it implementation and that delayed the recovery and lost him the Senate in 1982.

Clinton got the benefit of a Republican Congress when the stock market took off AFTER the 1994 election and kept going until he left office.

Bush II could have had a good run but he had Hastert, an Illinois Combine crook, as speaker. 9/11 was bad but Hastert was as bad. Bush was no conservative but, given the hand he had after 9/11, I pretty much agreed with him until Bremer took over Iraq.; 10/22/14, 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...: "his ability to win a war is just as inept"

We sure have a high standard these days for winning wars. Very few in our military killed and the enemy surrenders within weeks, and the Commander in Chief is inept? Yeesh.

What does competent warcraft look like to you?

With such a high standard, you'd never go to war, until it's too late and then you're conquered.; 10/22/14, 4:54 PM
Joe said...: Usage note: remember, his first name is Even. As in "Even Bruce Bartlett (says something nasty or bitter about conservatives)"; 10/22/14, 5:11 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/22/14, 5:37 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/22/14, 5:38 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/22/14, 5:59 PM
n.n said...: Achilles:

People have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion is premeditated murder of a wholly innocent human life.

Abortion was legalized as a "religious" exemption under the First Amendment that allowed for the exercise of a sincerely held faith in a clinic. Planned parenthood, including abortion, is the commission or contract to commit premeditated murder of a wholly innocent human life.

Abortion was normalized with an argument of spontaneous conception (or "viability) that granted exclusive right for women to commit or contract for premeditated murder of unwanted human lives from conception to some time around birth. It is a false myth propagated by progressives, liberals, libertarians, not a few faux-conservatives, and all left-wing "religious" men and women.

The evolution of human life from conception to natural, accidental, or premeditated death is self-evident. With Roe v. Wade, succeeding laws, Planned Parenthood et al, and Democrat-sponsored normalization, the state established a degenerate religion, or cult (i.e. faith without a moral foundation, with a materialistic focus), really.

Abortion is both a Constitutional and moral issue. Women have no greater right to commit premeditated murder than men. The only right to commit murder is in cases of self-defense. That's it. It's a right implicitly and explicitly acknowledged of both men and women. Granting women an extra-legal and moral right to commit premeditated murder for causes other than self-defense creates a moral hazard.; 10/22/14, 6:06 PM
RecChief said...: Achilles said...
RecChief said...
"Of course it is, in that it creates a legal requirement that people buy a service from private vendors."

"That's not conservative. nor is your walton family example."

So does this mean conservative is a general dislike for government interference? Or only in certain cases?"

Don't forget I was quoting Robert Cook in the first half of that. You know, I don't hate government. I like having my streets plowed. I like good teachers in my school district. I don't mind anti-trust laws. I do have a problem with government over reach and interference.

But are you saying that conservatism is in tune with the government mandating that you purchase a service? or that conservatism would be fine with forcing people to shop at Wal Mart? If so, then I'm not a conservative.; 10/22/14, 7:21 PM
cubanbob said...: These 'classic conservatives' a/k/a/ country club and Rockefeller Republicans are way past their sale date. Why vote for lite Liberals? For that, vote for the real deal.; 10/22/14, 7:54 PM
n.n said...: Compassion is good, not bad. The limit of compassion, whether it is for the poor or rich, is when it sponsors or protects corruption.

It is dissociation of risk that is the opiate of the masses, elite, and pro-choice women (and men).; 10/22/14, 10:36 PM
Achilles said...: n.n said...
"Compassion is good, not bad. The limit of compassion, whether it is for the poor or rich, is when it sponsors or protects corruption."

Since when does government force equal compassion? You could make an argument for later term protection but the personhood at conception argument is purely religious.

Democracy is not the best way to make that decision. Government is not the right way to change this. Religion in the context of individual relationships is.; 10/23/14, 2:26 AM
Achilles said...: "But are you saying that conservatism is in tune with the government mandating that you purchase a service? or that conservatism would be fine with forcing people to shop at Wal Mart? If so, then I'm not a conservative."

Conservatism seems to be confused lately. But it has always been interested in legislating morality. Somewhere along the line they decided that marriage, abortion, and and education belonged at the federal level.

The problem for them is they are the minority and they are getting a little taste of the majorities boot. You would think they would learn a lesson from this but they are pretty thick sometimes.

I will also point out that the individual mandate originally bubbled out of conservative think tanks. But they learned on implementation that as soon as you put the government in charge government doesn't stop at just forcing you to have insurance. They get to decide what that insurance covers too. Just like if you believe government gets to define marriage as between a man and a woman it can also define it as any 2 people and force you to like it.

Eventually conservatives will realize democracy is the worst way to decide anything but my guess is the country is too far gone at this point.; 10/23/14, 2:41 AM