Obama would, in fact, govern from the left

[subterFUSE]

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on July 8, 2008.

The list of issues on which Barack Obama has flipped now that the primaries are over is long and growing rapidly.

• He says he believes in a Second Amendment right to bear arms.

• He now opposes late-term abortion.

• He suddenly is a devotee of using faith-based institutions to deliver public services.

• He now says that he won’t raise Social Security taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. In the primary, he said he’d eliminate the threshold entirely, including on people making as little as $100,000.

• He recently opposed the Fairness Doctrine for talk radio.

• Now he says he’s going to consult with the military before pulling out of Iraq.

But so extensive a list of flip-flops, all in the past few weeks, begs the basic question: Was he lying before when he was a liberal, or is he prevaricating now?

Even if Obama means what he is saying as he moves to the center trying to win the general election, the fact is that he will be forced to move very far to the left should he become president, forced by the liberals in his own party.

If Obama wins, it’s more than likely that he will take office with a Congress filled with Democrats and liberals. Most probably, the Senate will have at least 55 Democrats (including pickups in Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, New Hampshire and Alaska). And there might be as many as 62 (possible Democratic pickups include Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Kentucky, Texas, Kansas and North Carolina). The House will, of course, be solidly in Democratic control.

Faced with the same situation in 1993, as he took office as president, Bill Clinton found no alternative but to move dramatically to the left, shelving for the moment his promises of a middle-class tax cut and welfare reform. He had no choice. The Democratic majorities in both Houses served him with notice: Either you stay within the caucus and not cross the aisle in search of support for centrist policies, or we will do unto you what we did to Jimmy Carter when Tip O’Neill turned on him and made his life miserable. Clinton was forced to emphasize healthcare reform over welfare changes and to go with a liberal economic stimulus package capped by big tax increases. The liberal stain sank so deeply into the fabric of his presidency that it caused him to lose Congress in 1994, and almost to lose the 1996 election.

It will be the same with Obama. On all of his basic issues, the Democrats in Congress will hold his feet to the fire and make him govern to the left. On his signature issue of Iraq, he may find himself with a war already won, a democracy already stable and a problem already solved. Nevertheless, he will be forced to rip the scab from the wound and set it bleeding again by bringing our troops home prematurely. His healthcare proposals will be forced far to the left until they amount to a government takeover of the healthcare system. Obama will not be able to govern from the center. His party won’t let him do it.

Ultimately, Bill Clinton’s congressional supporters became his jailers and he morphed from their leader into their hostage. Dependent on every last Democrat to pass legislation in the House and to prevail over a filibuster in the Senate, he found himself pushed further and further to the left until, he told me, "I don’t even recognize myself." He had to lade his economic and anti-crime package with pork to satisfy urban congressmen and to win their support of a bill that included a federal death penalty.

Obama will not be able to help himself. The Democratic majority in Congress won’t settle for triangulation. They will make the Obama of November into a liar and the Obama of the primaries into an honest man.

[thesightless]

Re: Obama would, in fact, govern from the left

they all do it.

toasty will jupm in and debate this, but its true. but the real truth is that mccain is doing the same exact shit.

do the country a favor and vote for barr. also, vote independent on every congressional platform

[toasty]

Re: Obama would, in fact, govern from the left

First off, have you ever considered adding anything to these articles rather than just posting them without comment? Not disrespect to you intended here, just saying that Dick Morris is one of a large, large number of pundits -- never really felt there was anything so unusually insightful about his thoughts that they necessarily require posting. Moreover, it's a discussion board, making your thoughts on what Dick is saying particularly germane. I know you've got thoughts, let's hear 'em!

OK, with that said, here are my thoughts on this article -- I know you're on pins and needles -- bascially, I reject the underlying premise of the argument, that Obama has "flipped" on issues:

Specifically:

• He says he believes in a Second Amendment right to bear arms.

When has he ever said that he didn't believe in the Second Amendment, or that he intended to try to get it repealed? In fact, his position on guns has not been particularly well-documented -- and now that it's coming out, it may be a little further right than some on the left might have expected, but it's more a pronouncement of position than a change. Further, as positions go, I think it makes a lot of sense.

• He now opposes late-term abortion.

Simply not true. He's said that late-term abortions must absolutely be kept legal to protect the health of the mother.

• He suddenly is a devotee of using faith-based institutions to deliver public services.

Obama has always been a proponent of faith-based initiatives. I know this because it's one of my least favorite positions of his. The good news is that George Bush's faith-based initiatives and Barack Obama's faith-based initiatives are two entirely different things, and I am comfortable that Obama has a healthy respect for the separation of church and state. There is nothing "sudden" about his embrace of faith-based initiatives, nor do I think it's accurate to say that he intends that those institutions will be "delivering public services."

• He now says that he won’t raise Social Security taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. In the primary, he said he’d eliminate the threshold entirely, including on people making as little as $100,000.

Looks like more of a refinement than a flip to me. Regardless, it's a change I can get behind.

• He recently opposed the Fairness Doctrine for talk radio.

Again, is this a change of position, or the announcement of a position that was more centrist than people on the far left expected? Look at who's upset about this, and I think the answer is obvious. Personally, I could care less if the AM dial is flooded with arch-conservatives -- antiquated technology for antiquated thinkers...

• Now he says he’s going to consult with the military before pulling out of Iraq.

This is the one that gets me, because it takes word-parsing to a whole new and absurd level. Has Obama ever flatly denied that he would consult with the military before pulling out of Iraq? Has he ever indicated that even if his commanders say it's an awful idea, he's still going to take the same approach? And might I add, isn't this the position a president should take, and haven't we all had enough of a president who is too bullheaded to listen to those around him?

In fact, I'm pretty sure that Obama has in fact said, perhaps in a debate or two, that of course he would want the input of his commanders on the ground before doing anything. That doesn't mean that he intends to change the ultimate goal of getting us the hell out of Iraq, it means that he's flexible as to how that will take place, and if his advisors tell him that he should do A instead of B, he'll listen to that. I recognize that we've lived through 7 years of having someone running the country who is clinically retarded, but I think both McCain and Obama are entitled to the benefit of the doubt that they are not going to pursue something that they believe to be bad for the country out of spite.

Has Obama moved towards the center? Of course he has. The only legitimate change of position I've seen, though, is FISA (which drives me nuts) -- and Morris didn't mention that for some reason. The rest of this is just ticky-tack word parsing by the talking heads.

[thesightless]

Re: Obama would, in fact, govern from the left

http://obama.senate.gov/votes/

there you go. stop listening to the candidates and thier backers, LOOK for yourself.

has only voted 4 times since may 13, and most of this year isnt central, its party line.

even worse news is that mccain's voting record is not availble ont he senate site. but it is party line as well.

[toasty]

Re: Obama would, in fact, govern from the left

http://obama.senate.gov/votes/

there you go. stop listening to the candidates and thier backers, LOOK for yourself.

has only voted 4 times since may 13, and most of this year isnt central, its party line.

even worse news is that mccain's voting record is not availble ont he senate site. but it is party line as well.

What is a "central" voting record? If the other side puts up god-awful legislation, are you obligated to vote for it to prove you have the ability to see things from both sides? Shouldn't legislation you've authored/passed be the factor you look at? Does it matter if you draft legislation with someone from the opposing party that gets passed?

I'm sure you view the voting record as the most important thing to look at, but I actually view it as the least important thing to look at, especially in the Senate where votes are often influenced by horse-trading and compromise. Frankly, given the extent to which both parties have told one another to fuck off over the last 5-6 years or so, I'd be stunned to find anyone that wasn't voting primarily party line outside of blue dog dems.

[thesightless]

Re: Obama would, in fact, govern from the left

not that far.. but a "central" ercord would at least show him breaking party lines on divided votes like, for say, the privitization of SS. (which was a great idea if implemented correctly)

[toasty]

Re: Obama would, in fact, govern from the left

not that far.. but a "central" ercord would at least show him breaking party lines on divided votes like, for say, the privitization of SS. (which was a great idea if implemented correctly)

Not necessarily it wouldn't. What if he doesn't believe in the privatization of SS? The fact that he hasn't voted with the GOP on the things that you consider important doesn't mean anything other than that you disagree with him...

[MJDub]

Re: Obama would, in fact, govern from the left

^ Beat me to the punch. Maybe he voted against privatizing SS because he wasn't for it. Novel.

Voting with the GOP just to say you're bipartisan seems hollow. If it's something that the parties came to a compromise over, and especially a compromise that he himself helped push, then that's more worthy of either praise or criticism, depending on your view.

Judging on voting records alone can be a little misleading simply because by the time bills reach the floor, there's so many things tacked on to them. Unfortunately that's just reality.

[shosh]

Re: Obama would, in fact, govern from the left

My fellow Americans:
As your future President I want to thank my supporters, for your mindless support of me, despite my complete lack of any legislative achievement, my pastor's relations with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan dictator Moamar Quadafi, my ability to pay attention in church, or my blatantly leftist voting record while I present myself as some sort of bi-partisan agent of change.

I also like how my supporters claim my youthful drug use and criminal behavior somehow qualifies me for the Presidency after 8 years of claiming Bush's youthful drinking disqualifies him. Your hypocrisy is a beacon of hope shining over a sea of political posing.

I would also like to thank the Kennedy's for coming out in support of me. There's a lot of glamour behind the Kennedy name, even though JFK started the Vietnam War, his brother Robert illegally wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr. and Teddy killed a female employee with whom he was having an extra marital affair and who was pregnant with his child. And I'm not going anywhere near the cousins, both literally and figuratively.

And, I'd like to thank Oprah Winfrey for her support. Her love of meaningless empty platitudes will be the force that propels me to the White House.

Americans should vote for me, not because of my lack of experience or achievement in anything other than professional activism, but because I make people feel good and feeling good is good. Voting for me also causes some white folk to feel relieved of their imagined, racist guilt. I say things that sound meaningful, but don't really mean anything because Americans are tired of things having meaning. If things have meaning, then that means you have to think about them.

Americans are tired of thinking. It's time to shut down the brain, and open up the heart. So when you go to vote, remember, don't think, go with your emotions, just do it, and do it for me.

Thank You.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

[MJDub]

Re: Obama would, in fact, govern from the left

This guilt by association thing for Obama is ridiculous IMO.