Edited on Sat Dec-19-09 12:41 PM by bigtree
Candidate Obama was very centrist in his policy positions. The Democratic primary evolved into a rhetorically populist campaign, but Mr. Obama promised to 'deal' with republicans and signaled the very compromises that we've seen on issue after issue. His 'pragmatic' approach and intention was well known and discussed. I argued against his candidacy for that very reason. I remember Mr. Obama arguing that Mrs. Clinton's health care reform attempt was 'too partisan' and he promised to 'work with' republicans to produce health care legislation. It's no surprise at all to see core principles whittled away as most president's in my life time have been subject to by Congress and left with the choice of walking away or producing something to hold up and claim reform or progress.
It's called politics and the president is a politician, not a con man (as was suggested here). His initiatives are decidedly subject to the prevailing winds in the legislature. That's the way he's said he intends to manage his initiatives; through compromise with obstructionists. The consequences are predictable. The party of liars just shifts their argument and objections to suit the moment - in much the same way the republican-emulating Democrats like Lieberman and Nelson expouse their affinity for the 'D' in their title whenever it suits them and spend the rest of their time trashing the party and our initiatives.
I do think it's fair to argue that the president doesn't appear to have a very significant or durable core of principles which would compel him to resist accepting the bulk of the watered-down, antithetically compromised legislation that's being laid out before him. The 'urgency of now' and all of that . . .
In many of these legislative compromises he appears to be politically naive. That's what surprises and disturbs me the most.
|