The Fake Moderate

Barack Obama has tried to hide his far left political inclinations by boasting of his "post partisan" approach to governing. We are led to believe that under an Obama presidency, partisan differences will be smoothed over by the Great Conciliator and his ideas for bringing us together.

Michael Gerson sees through this baloney with ease:

Recently, Jake Tapper of ABC News asked a similarly blunt question of Barack Obama: "Have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?" Obama's response is worth quoting in full: "Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn't popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get something done in Washington, it entails some political risks. But I think the basic principle which you pointed out is that I have consistently said, when it comes to solving problems, like nuclear proliferation or reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, that I don't approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective."

For a candidate running as a centrist reformer, this is pretty weak tea. Ethics reform and nuclear proliferation are important issues, but they have hardly put Obama in the liberal doghouse. When I recently asked two U.S. senators who are personally favorable to Obama to name a legislative issue on which Obama has vocally bucked his own party, neither could cite a single instance.

Contrast this mealy mouthed excuse with McCain's solid - if maddening - record of bi-partisanship over his long career.

But Obama's partisanship is well hidden:

Perhaps Obama is just conventionally liberal. Perhaps he has carefully avoided offending Democratic constituencies. Whatever the reason, his lack of a strong, centrist ideological identity raises a concern about his governing approach. Obama has no moderate policy agenda that might tame or modify the extremes of his own party in power. Will every Cabinet department simply be handed over to the most extreme Democratic interest groups? Will Obama provide any centrist check on liberal congressional overreach?

It is an odd thing when a presidential candidate bases his campaign on a manifest weakness.
Rudy Giuliani ran on a platform of foreign policy experience while lacking it completely. Obama promises post-partisanship while doing little to demonstrate it in the Senate. And the independent voters so eagerly courted in this election may eventually ask about Obama the odd but appropriate question: What dogs has this man bitten?
"Conventionally liberal" is not quite accurate. Few conventional liberals I know hang around with bigots, crooks, radicals, and terrorists.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky



Barack Obama has tried to hide his far left political inclinations by boasting of his "post partisan" approach to governing. We are led to believe that under an Obama presidency, partisan differences will be smoothed over by the Great Conciliator and his ideas for bringing us together.

Michael Gerson sees through this baloney with ease:

Recently, Jake Tapper of ABC News asked a similarly blunt question of Barack Obama: "Have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?" Obama's response is worth quoting in full: "Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn't popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get something done in Washington, it entails some political risks. But I think the basic principle which you pointed out is that I have consistently said, when it comes to solving problems, like nuclear proliferation or reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, that I don't approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective."

For a candidate running as a centrist reformer, this is pretty weak tea. Ethics reform and nuclear proliferation are important issues, but they have hardly put Obama in the liberal doghouse. When I recently asked two U.S. senators who are personally favorable to Obama to name a legislative issue on which Obama has vocally bucked his own party, neither could cite a single instance.

Contrast this mealy mouthed excuse with McCain's solid - if maddening - record of bi-partisanship over his long career.

But Obama's partisanship is well hidden:

Perhaps Obama is just conventionally liberal. Perhaps he has carefully avoided offending Democratic constituencies. Whatever the reason, his lack of a strong, centrist ideological identity raises a concern about his governing approach. Obama has no moderate policy agenda that might tame or modify the extremes of his own party in power. Will every Cabinet department simply be handed over to the most extreme Democratic interest groups? Will Obama provide any centrist check on liberal congressional overreach?

It is an odd thing when a presidential candidate bases his campaign on a manifest weakness.
Rudy Giuliani ran on a platform of foreign policy experience while lacking it completely. Obama promises post-partisanship while doing little to demonstrate it in the Senate. And the independent voters so eagerly courted in this election may eventually ask about Obama the odd but appropriate question: What dogs has this man bitten?
"Conventionally liberal" is not quite accurate. Few conventional liberals I know hang around with bigots, crooks, radicals, and terrorists.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky