cynoscion’s blog

Why is OBAMA Afraid of his Political Heritage ?

barack obama is a reformer who is embarrassed by being called a liberal. worse yet he doesn’t even covenant what being a liberal means. as related by by peter wehner in the wsj today obama tends to dismiss the big-hearted label”oh, he’s liberal. he’s charitable,” he said recently in describing a characterization of him by republicans. “let me rebuke you something. there’s nothing liberal about wanting to reduce change in politics. it’s common sense. . . . there’s nothing liberal about poor to show up sure that everybody has robustness care.”the issues you choose to support don’t neccesarily impel you liberal or conservative its the solutions you pick to clarify those issues. conservatives basically cartel good-natured colour, we believe that human kind is basically good and can make its own decisions. liberals do not have the same trust in vulnerable sort. liberals value that given the choice man determination always pick the narcissistic solution, so the role of government is to control their lives and force them to do the right effects. mr. obama needs to inoculate himself against the claim that he’s a liberal. for the former quarter-century it has been consistently the most effective charge made by republicans against democrats. america is a center-right fatherland and in modern times has not elected a thoroughgoing big-hearted as president (jimmy carter and bill clinton ran as moderate democrats). the imbroglio is that, by any reasonable standard, mr. obama is an orthodox not literal.

National Journal rated him as the most liberal person in the Senate in 2007, and for good reason. On economic policy, Mr. Obama favors higher income, Social Security and corporate taxes. He supports massive increases in domestic spending and greater government regulation of the economy. He favors a significantly larger role for the federal government in health care. He opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Obama has criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a partial birth abortion ban, and he wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. He voted against John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. In Illinois, Mr. Obama supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. And he supports granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

On national security matters, Mr. Obama voted to deny legal immunity to telecom companies that have cooperated with the government in warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists. He wants to grant habeas corpus rights to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. He supports a full-scale withdrawal from Iraq. And he says, in his first year in office, he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea without preconditions.

It’s no wonder that Mr. Obama has been endorsed by Moveon.org one of the most radical groups within the liberal universe.

Adding to Mr. Obama’s problems is his close association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American rantings are the kind of thing routinely said by the far left.

For whatever reason, Mr. Obama has failed to do what Mr. Clinton did in 1992 run as a “new” Democrat who favors some conservative policies (ending welfare as we know it, supporting free trade, criticizing the “butchers of Beijing,” and famously criticizing Sister Souljah).

Since Mr. Obama’s record reveals him to be a doctrinaire liberal, he dismisses ideological labels as simplistic, misleading and outmoded. When asked if he’s comfortable with the liberal label, he says, “This is what I would call old politics. This is the stuff we’re trying to get rid of . . . Those old categories don’t work, and they’re preventing us from solving problems.”

In fact, “liberal” and “conservative” can be useful (if incomplete) monikers a shorthand way of describing where an individual stands on issues and, as importantly, their political philosophy. They are an indicator of a person’s underlying assumptions, the propositions they embrace or reject. Mr. Obama’s effort to present himself as a post-ideological figure is an effort to avoid an important national debate. And John McCain should not let Mr. Obama (assuming he wins the Democratic nomination) get away with it.

But because the political environment and challenges facing America have changed significantly since Ronald Reagan was president, it will not be enough for Mr. McCain to invoke the word “liberal” against Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain needs to present a compelling case on the foundational beliefs that divide liberalism and conservatism on matters like the size and role of government, competition and accountab

Related posts: Feint, Nancy chandler, Radio movie, Nowitzki, Ted moseby