Skip to comments.Obama: The conservative in 2012 (He's serious!)
Posted on 12/25/2011 8:16:01 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
At a moment when the nation wonders whether politicians can agree on anything, here is something that unites the Republican presidential candidates and all of them with President Obama: Everyone agrees that the 2012 election will be a turning point involving one of the most momentous choices in U.S. history.
True, candidates (and columnists) regularly cast an impending election as the most important ever. Campaigning last week in Pella, Iowa, Republican Rick Santorum acknowledged as much. But he insisted that this time, the choice really was that fundamental. The debate, he said, is about who we are.
Speaking not far away, in Mount Pleasant, Newt Gingrich went even further, and was more specific. This is the most important election since 1860, he said, because theres such a dramatic difference between the best food-stamp president in history and the best paycheck candidate. Thus did Gingrich combine historic sweep with a cheap and inaccurate attack. Nonetheless, it says a great deal that Gingrich chose to reach all the way back to the election that helped spark the Civil War.
Mitt Romney was on the same page in a speech in Bedford, N.H. This is an election not to replace a president but to save a vision of America, he declared. Its a choice between two destinies. Sounding just like Santorum, he urged voters to ask: Who are we as Americans, and what kind of America do we want for our children?
Obama could not agree more...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The commentator definitely needed a cigarette after that tremendous release of pent-up emotion.
Sounds GREAT to me!
Well.. he did force the republicans to pass his tax cut....
He made the hard decision, made the plan, executed the plan, got the job done.
The way I understand it went down, he cancelled the take down a couple of times and had to be dragged in from a golf outing for the photo op of a disinterested POTUS as the event occurred.
Hey, that’s not how the NYT tells the story ...
The TOTUS may well be more conservative than Mittens.
Sure, if you mean Obama wants to “conserve” hugely jacked-up wasteful government welfare spending on union goons and the lifelong-government-tit-suckers. Call me a crazy “liberal” (of the classical, Lockean type) who wants to liberate humanity from this slavery.
Yeth, I am the twu conservative
I wanted an insulting acronym. I had no idea that it would actually describe the MSM. But not necessarily Mr. Dionne. He expresses his feeeeeeeeeeeeelings and does not present them as objective news like the Obama SCUM do.
So to be fair, Mr. Dionne merely types in his opinions. To wit, that the Republicans all lie about his PRESIDENT! Obama (mmmm, mmmm, mmm) and "Obama will thus be the conservative in 2012, in the truest sense of that word. He is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal." Our savior IOW.
Sadly, many millions of people in this country would agree with Mr. Dionne if they somehow happened upon this screed.
Im convinced that Rushs New Castrati was modeled on E.J Dionne. Man, this guy is an idiot. The fact is, at this point, the GOP seems to be headed towards nominating Romney, a fairly moderate Republican, who isn't nearly as ambitious in his goals as the author attempts to impute to the GOP. But then again, Mr Castrati never had an original thought.
Half the country doesn’t pay income taxes. What do they have to lose?
LOL Osama Bin Laden has been dead for many years due to kidney failure most likely. Obama had nothing to do with the demise of Osama.
Income taxes are not the only taxes to which people are subjected.
Picking one form of taxation and suggesting (explicitly, as the Democrats do, or implicitly, as the Republicans do) that folks who don't pay that tax (yet are subject to other taxes) are somehow not paying their "fair share" is nothing short of engaging in rhetorical class warfare.
Of course, all of this discussion masks the real problems: one, our system of government has become excessively complex, convoluted, and bureaucratic that it's nearly impossible to determine exactly whether the government machinery is fulfilling its objectives at a minimal (or near minimal) cost; and, two, the average self-interested American taxpayer, seeking to minimize taxes and fees paid while maximizing benefits obtained from the government ("getting the most bang for the buck," is more than willing to elect officials who add debt - lots of debt - to the mix. In short, the complexity of government has created the illusion that a free lunch - or as my economist friends might put it, both guns and butter at the same time - is in fact possible (while in reality, it's not).
Nah, I know about liberals, LOL. I never get that close.
Hope youre having a wonderful time as well.
B.J. Dionne from WaPo-Obama continues to beat the drumbeat that The Won put out at the media summit at the White Hut a few weeks ago.
The call to take Bin Laden down was made by Clinton and Panetta. Obama was a disinterested observer.
No, he's E.J. Dionne, creating fresh manure for the ComPost.
In a sense, the author is right. Obama is “conservative” in one sense of that word. He wants to keep the system the way it is now, with the same ruling class continuing to rule and expand its writ in the same way it has done since the 1930’s. He is at the heart of the ruling conventional wisdom and wants to conserve the power of the class that imposes that conventional wisdom.
In the sense “conservative” is used on this FR, he is of course the anti-christ. But modern conservatives are actually revolutionaries. They want to end the beast created by progressives since the 30’s. So maybe conservative is the wrong word for us. There’s not much point in trying to conserve something that, for the most part, no longer exists.
” the average self-interested American taxpayer, seeking to minimize taxes and fees paid while maximizing benefits obtained from the government (”getting the most bang for the buck,” is more than willing to elect officials who add debt - lots of debt - to the mix. In short, the complexity of government has created the illusion that a free lunch - or as my economist friends might put it, both guns and butter at the same time - is in fact possible (while in reality, it’s not). “
“Land of the spree, and home of the knave...”
And Obama is definitely experienced at #2 : “You mean I can get Social Security when I retire without paying the taxes for it if I just vote for Obama? And only the rich will have to pay the taxes if he is made King? And my free college at the taxpayers expense is their investment not just me getting welfare?”
I came across this last night : The US Economy is Doomed
Obama is conserving the welfare state, which is issue #1 through 10 with these MSM jokers.
in a nutshell...
I knew that it would be a matter of time before the Liberals co-opt the term "conservative". If they cannot take the term they will neutralize the term with confusing and contradictory definitions.
Obama should run with this. His new campaign slogan can be something like the following:
“No change. No hope. 4 more years!”
Who’s the first quote from?
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.