-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 39 comments
-
DeMint's Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant...And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In response to the question of whether or not his policies were socialistic, Obama said:
"I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement -– the prescription drug plan -- without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word 'socialist' around can’t say the same."
I can't say I'm surprised to hear Obama make such an argument. In fact, back in 2007, before all of the Bush bailouts started, I wrote:
In a sense, President Bush has already paved the road for a figure with Obama's skills to reassert liberalism. Under Bush, the size of government has increased at a faster rate than during any administration since Lyndon Johnson's, and it has given us the monstrosities of the Medicare prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind. Rhetorically, Bush gave away the store by touting "compassionate conservatism "and notoriously uttering, "When somebody hurts, government has got to move." Considering that this all came from somebody identified as a conservative president, Republicans are left with little leverage to argue against Obama's "slight change in priorities."
Unfortunately, this is where we now find ourselves. But at the same time, by painting Bush as a big government conservative, President Obama is undermining his own argument that somehow eight years of Bush showed us what happens if a society is overly reliant on free markets.
View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/09/bush-started-it
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- P Is for Poison
- Heaven Can't Wait
- Rating the Presidents and Their Raters
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Interloper| 3.9.09 @ 5:35PM
The Wondering Jew of the America Spectator says:
"President Obama is undermining his own argument that somehow eight years of Bush showed us what happens if a society is overly reliant on free markets."
That is your argument, not President Obama's. He is saying that big government has been here long before he took office. The issue is having big government actually serve the people in meaningful ways. The President seeks to reform big government so that it is more beneficial to middle and lower-class Americans, not to eliminate it. So, for example, his health care efforts will try to cover most workers instead of serving gravy to drug companies as the Bush Medicare prescription drug benefit does.
Do less wondering, and more thinking, token.
ruth| 3.9.09 @ 5:51PM
I don't care what Bush did, I will NEVER let Obama off the hook. I, and many like me, will hold him responsible for whatever happens to our country from now on. Count on it.
ruth| 3.9.09 @ 5:54PM
If our country goes down in flames, I hope it takes garbage liberalism with it, forever.
Gene| 3.9.09 @ 7:38PM
He will never accept responsibilityfor his own actions
Angel| 3.9.09 @ 7:42PM
That's anti-semitic, Looper. You owe Klein an apology, you little commie pig.
Ran| 3.9.09 @ 10:55PM
Mr. Klein, Hag Someach.
Ruth, we won't go down in flames. We'll emerge fine. The Interlopers and the Bobs of the Republic instinctively know that this socialism bubble is about to blow, and it's taking them with it. That's why the angry tone, the constant lies, the panic.
Alan Brooks| 3.10.09 @ 12:04AM
now he comes out of the closet.
Interloper is a liberal-fascist antisemite.
read Jonah's "Liberal Fascism" again to see how it fits Interpooper to a 'T'.
ruth| 3.10.09 @ 12:14AM
All I know, Ran, is if I'm going down, so are those nasty little bleepers. Trust me. I am trying to behave here, so I'll watch my language and behavior. :)
ruth| 3.10.09 @ 12:18AM
Alan, can I use 'pooper'. too? Please? I love that one. Dude's a bigot, though, shouldn't be allowed to insult Klein like that. I'd love to slap the little liberal creep every day and twice on Sunday.
ruth| 3.10.09 @ 2:14AM
No he wouldn't.
Deborah| 3.10.09 @ 6:13AM
Geez.
"Mommy, Bush started it!"
"Okay, little Bambi, wait until Daddy gets home. Bush will get the spanking he deserves."
Talk about whiny liberals. The Whiner-in-Chief takes the cake, doesn't he? How many other presidents have used the excuse he uses? None come to mind, even Bill Clinton was not this much of a cry baby.
Great column on the fact that the country has no leader. Check it out:
"In terms of leadership, our presidential choices last November were between bad and far worse. America chose the far worse. We have a President with zero executive experience and not a clue about the nature of real and effective leadership. Our ship of state has no captain. As a general rule of thumb, Senators as well as lawyers make lousy leaders. It is not their training or their mindset. Snip –
"Obama fails the leadership preliminary qualifying round in so many ways. Here are a few.
"1. Leaders do not make excuses."
Read it here: http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/03/nation-without-leader.html
Thomas| 3.10.09 @ 6:31AM
It is unlikely that conservatives will rise up in rebellion against a liberal-socialist government. Why? Because we are just too darn law-abiding. Liberals, on the other hand, will be burning and looting as soon as they lose their cable tv. Compassionate social services look good, until the money runs out. Then the have-nots have nothing left to lose by taking what they want. After all, there is no longer any ladder to climb to a better life.
Deborah| 3.10.09 @ 10:30AM
Hey Thomas -- that's why the only good investments these days are in ATF ...alcohol, tobacco and firearms! We're all gonna need at least one of those items!
Alan Brooks| 3.10.09 @ 11:13AM
LBJ started it in 1965.
Quin| 3.10.09 @ 12:14PM
Interloper, I hereby pronounce you an anti-Semitic troll.