David Brooks - “Barack Obama is not who we thought he was”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/…_brooksonline04.html
Christopher Buckley “The Audacity of Nope”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/...he-audacity-of-nope/
That didn’t take long.
I get “page not found” on both those.
damn liberal media…
Well that certainly settles it.
.
I would expect any moderate who has paid attention since the election to be in the same place as Brooks. He also hits on something I've repeated here a few times; a large disparity between what is said from the podium, and what his admin is actually doing.
“Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.” Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/opinion/03brooks.html?em
I’m confused about something and need some clarification. My understanding of the current budget going through is that it is for fy 2009, which started October 1, 2008. It is, in effect, a continuation of last year’s activities. In a few weeks Obama is supposed to submit his own budget for fy 2010, which would be his first.
Or am I thinking of something different than Brooks?
09 budget, that was Bush’s technically, never fully passed because of partisan bickering, basically the dems in power knew the pork would swing their way when a dem president got in. Obama’s in, and is in the uncomfortable position of signing a bunch of earmarks into law. The dems in congress made the man renig on one of his oft stated mantras. The budget Brooks is referrring to is Obama’s 2010 budget which is out there, and the battle lines are beginning to be drawn. I tend to think that Obama will still win this one due to his popularity.
I would expect any moderate who has paid attention since the election to be in the same place as Brooks.
That’s because you aren’t a moderate. If you changed that to "any moderate republican or even “moderate conservative,” then I would agree with your statement.
Links, again.
Buckley http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-01/the-audacity-of-nope/
Brooks http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1
Of course, it’s not a simple party line thing as you make it out to be. Roughly 40% of the earmarks come from Republican members, and McCain put up an amendment yesterday just extending the current Continuing Resolution through the end of FY09 (so therefore getting rid of all of these earmarks). It only got 30 Republican votes. I am not saying I am for or against earmarks, just that it very much goes both ways.
David Brooks - “Barack Obama is not who we thought he was”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/…_brooksonline04.html
Christopher Buckley “The Audacity of Nope”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/...he-audacity-of-nope/
That didn’t take long.
Predictable. It amazes me how much faith some people exhibit when the truth is staring them in the face.
Of course, it’s not a simple party line thing as you make it out to be. Roughly 40% of the earmarks come from Republican members, and McCain put up an amendment yesterday just extending the current Continuing Resolution through the end of FY09 (so therefore getting rid of all of these earmarks). It only got 30 Republican votes. I am not saying I am for or against earmarks, just that it very much goes both ways.
This is my tacit recognition that the pork is rampant in both directions:
“dems in power knew the pork would swing their way when a dem president got in.”
Pay no attention to those dems holding secret meeetings to break rank with the president.
Cramer defects
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-my-response-white-house?page=1
This article is so spot on that I would like to kiss Cramer on his bald little head.
Senators doing their job? Heaven forfend!!
Call me, however, when they actually break rank on votes (Arlen Specter, I am looking in your direction…)
I didn’t read much of the article, but maybe he should respond to this…
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017155.php