Skip to comments.Why Obama Isn't Changing Washington
Posted on 11/27/2009 4:14:08 AM PST by reaganaut1
Washington is more partisan than ever, and more polarized. Even on a purely procedural vote to begin Senate debate on health-care reform this past Saturday, every Democrat voted one way (yes), every Republican the other (no).
With rare exception and with no objection from the president, Democrats draft bills with no input from Republicans. In return, Republicans vote in lockstep against Democratic legislation. Every House Republican voted against the stimulus, all but one against liberal health-care reform, and all but eight against cap-and-trade legislation that passed the House earlier this year.
Why has the president's publicly expressed vision of a kinder, gentler Washington failed to materialize? I think Mr. Obamawhile hardly the only person at faultis chiefly responsible.
He might have spawned a different Washington, a less divided town with Democrats firmly in charge but Republicans actively involved. The bonus for Mr. Obama and Democrats would be higher popularity and better prospects in 2010 midterm elections. Instead, the president made three strategic mistakesor, really, misreadings of the political landscapeand they've come back to haunt him and his party.
First, Mr. Obama misread the meaning of the 2008 election. It wasn't a mandate for a liberal revolution. His victory was a personal one, not an ideological triumph of liberalism. Yet Mr. Obama, his aides and Democratic leaders in Congress have treated it as a mandate to radically change policy directions in this country. They are pushing forward one liberal initiative after another. As a result, Mr. Obama's approval rating has dropped along with the popularity of his agenda.
Mr. Obama should have known better. The evidence that America remains a center-right country was right there in the national exit poll on Election Day [where] 34% identified themselves as conservative, 22% as liberal, and a whopping 44% as moderate.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Obama is a Marxist...nearly everything in his past points to this fact...not that the MSM will investigate. That doesn’t necessiarly make him a communist...but he certainly believes in collectivism.
We’re in real trouble with this guy. He’s leading us to the cliff...the media is the marching band...let’s see if we follow over.
He’s not out to change Washington. It has always been his kind of town. What he’s out to change is normal America. He wants our jobs, our money, our children, our freedom and our obedience.
Obama is who we thought he was!!!
fred still kisses the kenyan’s butt in this article. I knew election night that the usuper in chief was a liar, a communist/marxist/liberal and a muzzie when fred was deliriously promoting obama on the set of the All Stars... but fred was in full worship mode. He probably voted for the most anti-American, anti-GOD, pro marxist president ever to steal office (with acorn's help)!
It's not just Obama. The dems, rino's and the selfish biased prix in the media.
Hopefully as the trend suggest, America is not going to put up with this BS much longer!
Well said. I do not give Fred Barnes one minute of consideration. He is so far behind the parade that he can hardly see it in the distance.
Anyone who thought that the person who planned to apologize for America around the world, see: wish to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate; and who saw himself almost as a deity, see: stadium used for nomination acceptance speech; (need I mention his advisors and associates)was going to ‘unite’ Washington, was seriously deluded.
How could any observation of Fred Barnes be taken seriously.
He didn’t make any freakin “mistakes.” He’s a communist. He’s a looter. He lied his way in, and once in, he started doing what looters do. Sorry if that blows up your skirts, Fred, but if you didn’t see him for what he was a year ago, the skirts were already up over your eyes.
There is also some other dynamic at work in Washington that is creating all this partisanship in the Hill. GWB tried reaching out on several key issues and it only seemed to make his political opponents hate him all the more. So while I’d like to blame Obama, there’s more going on here.
This poll is misleading. Lots of liberals are uncomfortable admitting to being liberals. Many are more inclined (or have been conditioned) to conveniently to think of their left wing views as "moderate". Hence, a large percentage of the 44% number are probably closet liberals.
Sorry, Fred, but I think YOU completely misread Obama and his ilk.
They never promised bi-partisanship. They probably looked at Bush who reached across the aisle in 2001 (for education reform, social security reform, etc.) as weak and stupid and something they certainly wouldn’t do.
And don’t forget Rahm Emanuel’s “never waste a crisis” — they viewed and continue to view the financial and economic crisis something they should exploit for long-term political purposes.
They didn’t misread the American public and America being a center-right country — they were all out to stuff socialism down our throats. That’s the Chicago way!
Fred’s been misreading the political landscape for too many years now. He should follow the lead of the Beltway Boys and have himself canceled as a voice for conservatives.
The American people could not until now admit too that they are Marxists, even if they won’t do so. They call it “helping the poor”.
PLUS -- he never reached out to conservatives, but we may have gotten two good Supreme Court appointments out of him, one more than his father gave.
It's easy to forget with 9-11 and all that GWB campaigned a 'Compassionate Conservative'. We Conservatives allowed ourselves to believe what we wanted to believe over Bush's stated intentions.
The real question is, why are our 'leaders' kowtowing to an Arabian king?
The other question begging an answer is why would anyone vote for someone who would kowtow to a foreign leader?
Let's be honest. In real terms, by leaving our borders wide open and by cutting back on border security, Bush did little to nothing for America's security or welfare.
If you take the time to have an honest look at Bush's actions during his first term, you'd find them every bit as reprehensible as Oh!brother's.
Speak for yourself. I heard all I needed to hear when Bush said in 1999, "There ought to be limits to freedom..."
I knew then, that he was an enemy of America and I have not been proven wrong about him since.
I think you misunderstood my post. I was actually attempting to say that we collectively got what we deserved with Bush since he told us straight-up that he was going to expand the government at the expense of individual liberty. That doesn't mean that you or I were fooled. Just majority is all.
...more partisan than ever, and more polarized. Even on a purely procedural vote to begin Senate debate on health-care reform this past Saturday, every Democrat voted one way (yes), every Republican the other (no). With rare exception and with no objection from the president, Democrats draft bills with no input from Republicans... Obama -- while hardly the only person at fault -- is chiefly responsible... [A] bonus for Mr. Obama and Democrats would be higher popularity and better prospects in 2010 midterm elections. Instead, the president made three strategic mistakes... misread the meaning of the 2008 election... a personal one, not an ideological triumph... The evidence that America remains a center-right country was right there in the national exit poll on Election Day [where] 34% identified themselves as conservative, 22% as liberal, and a whopping 44% as moderate.Regardless of who took those numbers, plenty of straight-ticket Demwit voters consider themselves "moderate".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.