-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
David Brooks makes some good points in this New York Times column, but his closing statement — that events “have pushed Barack Obama off to the left” and now it’s time “to rebalance” — is bizarrely out of step with reality.
Nothing has pushed President Obama “off to the left.” Just the reverse, in fact. Obama has used events to push the country to the left, at least policy-wise.
Consider that the White House has used the current economic turmoil as justification for nearly all of its sweeping liberal policies — the stimulus bill, cash for clunkers, even a health-care overhaul, to name a few. Obama did not have to be “pushed” into these initiatives. He was eager to go there.
Rahm Emanuel let the cat out of the bag on that one earlier this year: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
View all comments (30) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/09/01/obama-wasnt-pushed
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
TipTop| 9.1.09 @ 10:40AM
You are correct about Obama "using" the events to lurch left. If he wanted to solve our problems, the solutions are to the right...and he ain't gonna go there. His goal is coercion and control, and private enterprise and capitalism be damned.
louis tully| 9.1.09 @ 1:03PM
"David Brooks makes some good points in this New York Times column...." You mean the part about the President's trouser crease?
I don't think anyone will be able to start a serious blog post with that line ever again. Could I interest you in a subscription to a different paper?
Pingback| 9.1.09 @ 1:41PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Obama Wasn't 'Pushed' : PlanetTalk.net - Learn links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 1:55PM
Again, rhetoric triumphs over fact. By definition, when you elect a Democrat you are pushing legislation to the left. Technically, since 56% of the voters elected Obama, THEY are the ones who pushed us leftward. Besides, Obama is doing EXACTLY what he said he'd do.
On a few things, he has been center right. He supported the Supreme Court decision in the D.C. case that there was an individual right to own a gun. He has been center right on the issue of homosexual marriage and in national security policy. That is actually more than I expected.
In addition, he has not strongly supported the public option and at least he says he is open to tort reform.
The stimulus bill was started under Republicans as well as the bank bailouts. Besides, there were many conservative economists who supported the stimulus. If you notice, when ultra leftists like Krugman wanted to make the stimulus even larger, Obama has resisted. He also completely cut out single payer from the health care debate.
Brooks is absolutely right because he is using factual information rather than ideology and stupidity to make his point.
Josie| 9.1.09 @ 2:10PM
Bob, admit it; you screwed up by voting for Obama. His approvals are at 45% and dropping. Only thing worse than a liberal voting for a Marxist is a "RINO" voting for same. Turd.
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 2:19PM
Josie, voting for Obama may have been a mistake, but it was less of one than voting for McCain. When he chose Palin, it was the end of the line for me. I'm just tired of electing dumb people to the Presidency. If the Obama presidency brings back fiscal conservatism, it will have been worth it. The Bush administration and Republicans have been both a disappointment and disaster. How could anyone vote for a continuation of the same course of action? To vote for McCain/Palin would have said I liked what occurred under Bush and the congressional Republicans.
Oldefarte| 9.1.09 @ 2:19PM
Give me a break! Obama was THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR in the Senate; and the MORONS of this country elected his President. Now America is getting what it deserves [by his policies]!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 2:45PM
Well, Oldefarte, the MORONS here support Sarah!!!!
Solo| 9.1.09 @ 2:49PM
Bob Wrote:
"Josie, voting for Obama may have been a mistake, but it was less of one than voting for McCain. When he chose Palin, it was the end of the line for me. I'm just tired of electing dumb people to the Presidency. If the Obama presidency brings back fiscal conservatism, it will have been worth it. The Bush administration and Republicans have been both a disappointment and disaster. How could anyone vote for a continuation of the same course of action? To vote for McCain/Palin would have said I liked what occurred under Bush and the congressional Republicans. "
LOL!!!
Yeah.....like Joe Biden as VP was a resume enhancement for Obama! Good grief!
Oh..and your "fiscal conservative" strategy was equally incoherent. Obama has tripled the deficit of Bush's full 8 years. AND .....he's only been in office 8 months.
You don't play chess, do ya'?
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 3:10PM
Solo, I know you don't use facts, so here is the chart of debt as a percentage of GDP:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
The bulk of the current increase occurred prior to Obama due to tax cuts that didn't stimulate the economy and continued growth in government. The main part of future growth is in entitlements and the reduction of federal revenues given the recession and increases in unemployment. This would have occurred no matter who was President. If you think otherwise, you certainly don't understand the federal budget. The largest part of the increase is in Medicare, not in bailouts or stimulus. If we don't address this issue, it won't solve the problem. Capish?
Nobama| 9.1.09 @ 3:27PM
Chartman strikes again! Save us your BS, Boob. Only amorons voted for the Marxist incompetent.
Boob and Obummer have three things in common: Both graduated from Harvard, both are liberal liars and both are stupid.
jr| 9.1.09 @ 3:47PM
Bob, sorry to pick on the stuff you typed but many of us did not vote for McShame/Palin. Of the two, Palin was far ahead of the free trader, open border, cross the aisle, lover of Kennedy McCain. We voted against the leftist Zero. Anyone in their right mind would have been able to see what would happen when the Zero got elected. That puts 56% of you out of your mind. Who paid for the expensive education of people like Obama and Sotomay--or? Want a neat topic to talk about? Van Jones.
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 4:20PM
JR -- I've voted "Republican" for over 40 years. I refuse to vote for any more incompetent and educationally limited Republicans whether they are McCain, Palin, or the like. There is no more automatic vote from me. When the Republican party realizes that they can't automatically get my vote, we might begin to get some good candidates. And yes, I will continue to vote for smart, educated Democrats until the Republican party puts a smart, educated candidate up for election even if I disagree with their politics. At least I agree with the Democrats on choice. If I didn't, that would make my actions very difficult.
Pete| 9.1.09 @ 4:47PM
Yes, indeed. Smart people surround themsleves with smart people.
http://www.glennbeck.com/conte.....198/29967/
ConservativeWanderer | 9.1.09 @ 6:01PM
Bob, your graph provides a good long-term view, but the scale is such that it's really hard to zero on in exactly where the spiraling debt started.
Perhaps this here picture--which has a much smaller timeframe, making it easier to see where the whole mess started escalating--will serve to educate you.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/28/obama’s-tripling-of-the-national-debt-in-pictures/
ConservativeWanderer | 9.1.09 @ 6:02PM
Oops, that link got broken. Try this one.
http://is.gd/2LSW1
Jessie| 9.1.09 @ 6:03PM
"RINO" Bob won't automatically vote for a republican but he will automatically vote for a smart Marxist. Got a chart that explains your 'logic', Boob?
Bob| 9.1.09 @ 6:20PM
Conservative, that chart is extremely misleading. First, it is not indexed against GDP as revenues also increase. Secondly, it is "projected" rather than real. Third, the 2009 and 2010 numbers were pretty well set in stone prior to any actions taken by the Obama administration. In the longer term, the vast majority of increases come from increases in non-discretionary spending like social security and Medicare which is affected by baby boomers retiring. It wouldn't matter who was President when it comes to non-discretionary spending. Remember that 83% of the federal budget comes from entitlements, military spending, and interest.
Therefore, the problem I have with the conclusion that Obama is responsible for this increase is that the vast majority of increase has nothing to do with his actions.
That said, he needs to address this issue. That will require revamping Social Security and Medicare -- something that no one really wants to talk about. Holding down discretionary spending only has a minor impact on the long term debt.
Nobama| 9.1.09 @ 6:47PM
Anyone who voted for Obummer obviously doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground.
Blah, blah, blah.
JP| 9.1.09 @ 9:15PM
Bob,
For FY 2009, $787 billion was spent for the stimulus (that is, borrowed); another $380 billion on Obama's passage of the second portion of TARP; another $300 billion in non-Medicare, non-Social Security, non-military domestic spending. That is, President Obama borrowed $1.4 trillion. He inheritedanother $200 billion from Obama, which gives a grand total $1.6 trillion defecit. (The Obama's own OMB numbers)
kingsmill| 9.1.09 @ 9:56PM
First Chris Matthews with the tingle up his leg at sight of Obama. Now, David Brooks, fascinated with Obama's pant leg. These Obama fetishists have got to go.
Pingback| 9.2.09 @ 7:04AM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Obama Wasn't 'Pushed' | kozmom news links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Duff OMelia | 9.2.09 @ 10:24AM
I agree with you Dave that Obama wasn't pushed there. However, you refer to the following:
"the stimulus bill, cash for clunkers, even a health-care overhaul" as liberal policies. Seems to me that Bush and the Republicans (conservatives) are just as into stimulus bills, bailouts, and federalizing health care (medicare prescription drug coverage).
I guess I've stopped considering issues in terms of whether they're liberal or conservative. What matters to me is the battle between statism and freedom. Both conservatives and liberals seem to be in the statist camp.
http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html
Nobama| 9.2.09 @ 2:48PM
Duff, you're ignorant or you'd know that all republicans are NOT conservatives and conservatives did NOT support Bush's big spending. Nice try, though.
No equivalency between conservatives and liberals. Obama is a Marxist--can't say that about conservatives (or republicans), though, I'm sure you'd like to try.
Duff OMelia | 9.3.09 @ 1:23PM
Nobama, is there a Republican in the House or Senate who is not in favor of expanding the size and scope of the federal government? I know of one (Ron Paul). Are there others I'm missing?
I think you've been duped by conservatives who talk about shrinking government but never actually do it.
Nobama| 9.9.09 @ 1:42PM
Nice try, Duff, but you're talking about RINOs not Conservatives. Don't try to conflate the two--it is most disingenuous of you. Makes you look like a troll.
Duff OMelia | 9.20.09 @ 2:54PM
Nobama, are there some folks in the House or Senate I'm missing? Are any in favor of eliminating departments? I'd love to see a list of who the "conservatives" are. Do any of them even understand what it means to be a free people? Do any understand how detrimental the federal reserve is?
Also, I'd love to know how you'd respond to Rothbard's analysis:
http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html