Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & blawgs
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Law & Letters
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
ADW blog
Father Z
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
The Anchoress
Whatever
Is Obama really a more moderate-leaning Democrat? Is he less partisan, truly capable of being a uniter, not a divider? Or if not in fact less partisan, is he at least nicer about his partisanship? Take a look at his response to President Bush's State of the Union address and decide for yourself:
The full transcript is available at BarackObama.com. Now let's take a look at some key passages.
First, right up front:
Tonight’s State of the Union was full of the same empty rhetoric the American people have come to expect from this President.
* * *
We heard the President say he wants to make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent, when we know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them.
* * *
but we know his plan leaves out seniors and fails to expand unemployment insurance, and we know it was George Bush’s Washington that let the banks and financial institutions run amok, and take our economy down this dangerous road.
* * *
Tonight was President Bush’s last State of the Union, and I do not believe history will judge his administration kindly.
It's not quite "children are starving in the streets because of Bush's policies, but it's not that far off, either. Does this mesh with his later promise?
But I also believe the failures of the last seven years stem not just from any single policy, but from a broken politics in Washington. A politics that says it’s ok to demonize your political opponents when we should be coming together to solve problems.
How is he "coming together to solve problems" when he accuses President Bush of letting the "banks and financial institutions run amok"?
I think the essence of his slipperiness, his disingenuity, is summed up when he decries: "A politics that puts Wall Street ahead of Main Street, ignoring the reality that our fates are intertwined." This sounds so good, so true, we're all in this together. But he conspicuously doesn't make the flip side of the statement, that we can't put Main Street ahead of Wall Street, either, because those fates are intertwined. He omits that, because the entire rest of his speech calls for policies which ignore Wall Street (giving the rich a tax cut they haven't even asked for) in order to pander to Main Street (a "middle class tax cut," "health care," "decent wages").
If he really wanted to step up to the plate and be a "uniter, not a divider," then at the same time he calls out the banks for lending money to poor black people too easily, he should call out the racial demagogues who attacked the banks just a few years ago for NOT lending money to poor black people. He'd acknowledge that the tax cuts spurred economic growth when we needed it. He'd point out that nobody really agrees on what the "middle class" is, so promising a "middle class tax cut" is just pandering.
But he didn't do that. "Bush is a bad President, but it's time to stop demonizing our political opponents." That's his message. Simon may well be right.
Our RSS feed
Well let me say this...
This wasn't one of his best speeches, but I don't think this is an example of the "disingenuous bipsrtisanship" that Simon rails against. I don't think that Obama is trying to hide his decidedly left-of-center views. The wisdom of such views is another debate, but I think Obama is trying to change the conversation, and look for compromises were they can be found, albeit from his vantage point. This can be an imperfect exercise, and his approach is not without its flaws, but I still get where he's coming from.
As to President Bush, he concludes him as a divider as opposed to a uniter. There is a mountain of validity to this, although in certain areas Obama's criticisms do have the faint smell of BDS.
"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."
John 16:33
Stench is more like it
There is a mountain of validity to this, although in certain areas Obama's criticisms do have the faint smell of BDS.
Faint smell? It was a stench to me. To me his speech was just as divisive as anything W could come up with and worse. He is also promoting himself as the Messiah with that speech.Obama is also setting himself up for the fall. The reaction I get from him is "vote for me and everything will be alright " Well, what if things aren't alright?
Now W has rarely floated my boat, but I never believed or accepted that W was any worse a divider than what was out there already. Isolating himself from political opposition has existed since Thomas Jefferson, yet W is the divider par excellance? And the Dems have been nothing but vitriolic since they lost in 2000
Rachel
I don't put bumperstickers on my car for the same reason I don't sell advertising space on my pants? James Lileks
Where do you see the compromise, Rafique?
Rafique, in this speech, where do you see the compromise? When he repeatedly paints a picture of Bush as the candidate of Wall Street, giving tax breaks only to the rich, where is the search for compromise? Do you really see anything different in his attacks on George Bush and the usual, typical Democratic attacks on George Bush? Up until the last couple of paragraphs, the same speech, railing against Bush and the rich and the special interests of the wealthy could have been given by Ted Kennedy, the very embodiment of harsh partisanship in Washington.
Seriously, what am I missing?
strongly inclined to agree with Pat here
Yeah, I'm strongly inclined to agree with Pat here. I see no sense of compromise in his comments about President Bush. I really have to stretch my credulity to its absolute maximum to believe his promise to be a uniter and a compromiser in the future when he is being every bit as ugly and divisive as everyone else as regards Bush and the existing establishment.
Of course, the speech makes horse sense. Tactically speaking, it's wisest for Obama to craft this speech to please the choir whose votes he most needs in order to win the democratic nomination. So he takes a few kicks at the lame duck. Let'sface it, this speech was quite obviously directed at democratic primary voters.
IOW, there is an inherent conundrum here. Obama MAY (please credit me with everything that "may"means here folks) be able to act as a uniter and wise compromiser once he becomes President. But if he acts and talks like a uniter of liberals and conservatives now by saying charitable things about President Bush and so on, he can't win the nomination. He pretty much has to say that he wants to start troop withdrawals now, and contrists must be satisfied that he didn't say whether he meant 100 permonth or 20,000. That's the god's honest truth and all the folks here should know it.
Now obviously in an ideal world someone who was poised to be a uniter would infuse this into everything they said and did while running for office. But in the real world, you have to preach to one side of choir in the primaries, and then to the whole choir in the general election. That's just the way it is.
So really, that leaves most rational and skeptical folks who want to support Obama in the uncomfortable position of accepting Obama's unity promise almost exclusively on faith. The actual data supporting it is vanishingly scant.
Which is not to say there's no chance I'll hop on the Obama wagon and actually vote for him. I might. But here's the thing...if he becomes President and does not seek genuine and respectful compromise, I'll quickly become a vocal opponent. If he continues to mouth platitudes while demonizing business interests, hiking taxes, blithely withdrawing rapidly from Iraq and playing the class warrior card, I may never vote for another democrat.
Like Mike says, we have to expect being disappointed, and I can. But I won't accept being betrayed.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
Well, not so much this speech, as I said it wasn't his best one,
but I think it past speeches he's done a better job of at least appearing to be a man of bipartisan compromise.
The thing is, I'm still weighing Obama as a candidate, so I haven't made up my mind yet, but I just wanted to say that just because Obama's politics are left-of-center, doesn't mean he cannot be serious about real compromse, despite his serious commitment to left-of-center views.
"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."
John 16:33
I agree on the principle, Rafique...
As someone who has spoken out in favor of partisanship and ideology in the past, I agree that one can have a strong, ideologically-influenced point of view and still be willing to work with the other side and find workable compromises. I'm just not convinced, by a long shot, that Sen. Obama is really living up to that possibility.
I find this speech particularly instructive because nowhere does he say even so much as, "look, Republicans mean well, they don't WANT to screw the middle class, but that would be the result of their policies." No, instead Bush has let banks "run amok." To compromise in the manner of the better half of Obama's rhetoric requires that one acknowledge the good faith of the other side, acknowledge that you share the same goals, even if you disagree on the means. But in his attack on Bush, he sounds like just another politician, doing exactly what he decries, later in the speech.
In other words, my post is not complaining, a la Simon, that Obama is a hopeless lefty who can't possibly be trusted to compromise on anything, it's that his attacks on Bush in the speech last night are exactly what he claims to oppose. Whatever policies he might advocate or settle for, he's not, in fact, practicing the new politics he claims to want.
Which of Obama's statements
Which of Obama's statements are false, let alone tendentious? The speech was full of empty rhetoric: Mr. Bush was calling for cutting spending while lining up a whole raft of new expenditures. And we don't need to continue tax cuts for the well-off. (Though that sentiment will cost me personally.) What we need is to pay our bills. Does the plan raise unemployment insurance? Was it not under Mr. Bush that the banks waded neck deep into the sub-prime mess? Do you think it's unfair to suggest that Mr. Bush will be judged harshly by history?
If this is your case against Obama it is remarkably weak. Every one of those statements is demonstrably true or at least arguably true. You'd better hope whoever gets the GOP nom has more ammunition than you do. The above statement would poll 70% overall, and probably a good 30% among Republicans.
See Brian's comment above.
See Brian's comment above.
Arguably true by Democratic partisans, maybe...
That's the typical defense of the partisan, Michael. "I'm not playing dirty politics, the other guy really is evil!" Like Obama, you demonstrate exactly what you claim to oppose.
Pay our bills? Yep. I say by cutting spending. You want to raise taxes. But, as we've pointed out, with supporting data, before, we have MORE tax revenue now than we did before the Bush tax cuts.
Sub-prime mess? I remember a few years ago a huge push against banks by Jesse Jackson and his ilk, accusing them of "red-lining" black neighborhoods and denying loans to good, hard-working black people. Do you think that had nothing to do with loans being made to unqualified individuals? What precise policies of the Bush Administration do you think are responsible for the unwise risks taken by the banks and mortgage lenders?
And where did Obama fault Bush for spending too much? Lord knows plenty of Republicans have, and the Democrats like to complain about spending come election time, but when you look at their criticisms of things like the Medicare drug plan, their complaint is that he didn't spend ENOUGH.
I have never said the other
I have never said the other guy is evil. I'd remind you that I supported the Iraq war, that I support portions of the Patriot Act, that I was yelling for increasing the size of the military and raising troop levels in Iraq way back when "good" conservatives were backing Rumsfeld's Easy-Bake war theory. I also generally support minimal regulation of the economy, and a moderate stance on abortion, and I have made peace with gun rights.
You want to cut spending? Me too. Did your president and your Congress cut spending? Or did they stick us with a massive drug benefit and a trillion dollar "off-budget" war? And by the way, just what specific cuts did Mr. Bush call for at the SOTU? Um . . . none?
It's Jesse Jackson's fault that WaMu and Countrywide took on massive numbers of subprime loans? You do realize how pitiful that sounds, don't you?
Yes, Obama, like all Democrats, calls for more government spending. The major difference being that he makes an attempt (however weak) to explain how we'll pay for it. Republicans cut taxes and then spend like drunks in a whorehouse. Bill Clinton left Bush with a surplus. Bush will leave his successor with a humongous deficit. And a war. And a strained military. And a housing collapse. And not fewer but more entitlements. Yay, GOP!
Look, Pat, coming off the last 7 years you got nothing. I mean, nothing. That's why none of the current candidates talk about Bush and all they do is hearken back to Reagan. Because for 7 years you people have done nothing but screw up.
That having been said, I at least still believe the GOP has some useful ideas. They manage to forget their own useful ideas, but they do have some. I'd rather not just have another Democrat who dances on the grave of the GOP come November. I'd rather have a Democrat who reaches out to the shattered, discredited remains of the GOP and listens to them, compromises with them, considers their needs.
But, you know, if what you want is to go down in flames with Mitt the Flip and then sit and stew while we ram our agenda down your throats, I guess that'll be okay, too.
I can support much of that Michael
Boy, your positions sound much like mine. Gees and I wonder why we argued. It would wrong to say Bush got nothing. Much of the strategic goals in foreign policy were right however mangled they became. I don't know if you can lay the blame of the housing collapse at Bush's door. And Democrats were more than content to see Bush flounder as they constructed the anti-Bushinator, over reaching every time. I don't think no child left behind a complete waste or having some standards for teachers. It is hard to make much of a Republican domestic list.
I might even agree with the blast at Romney. I see McCain wins in Florida as Hillary trounces Obama. I can't tell you how many people down there are pissed at the media, Republican Left pile on the Clintons.
So you can see why, if the Democrats are going to walk away with this, I would prefer some record, some civility, some ability to stand up to the blather from within and support Clinton. I think there is similar reason to support McCain. Bravo Florida.
What I don't understand is why you think a Democrat like Hillary isn't the one who can reach out to the "shattered, discredited remains of the GOP and listens to them, compromises with them and considers their needs". Why don't you stand up for the same virus infecting the Democrats that you believe has infected the Republicans? Where is the reaching out and bipartisanship in the name of one nation? Isn't this what Bill did and now suffers the hatred of the further Left out for revenge? That has been my whole point in taking issue with Obama. My whole point in the conversation with people who share the middle discourse. You make my case here about reaching out, yet I don't see you making the case for Obama's tact, record and obvious triangulation. Yes, I am angry that Republicans pile on the most likely Democrat who will reach out. Self-serving. Clinton did not personalize the attacks on Republicans. Hillary gave Bush what he wanted abroad. So why not encourage Democrats to be less like Rove and show some principle? White male Democrats don't seem to want a woman and black Democrats prefer a black. Young democrats don't like old Democrats. Hispanic Democrats don't seem to prefer black Democrats. Liberal Democrats don't seem to like Democrats with a real record of reaching out. That is a crime? I think it sad, but then I believe the country will serve a wake up call to the Left and their message of unity that exploits some nasty division. Real reaching out requires a sincere message of reaching out. Obama is disingenuous.
So perhaps you can explain any silence for what the Democrats are doing towards the Clintons. You seem to prefer the car salesman in JFK clothing. He is likely to perpetuate this insane cycle. I would agree with you about Romney and I think McCain has the only real chance to stop the Democrats, or reach out should he win the whole enchiladad. Romney's record is full of holes. At least McCain has some principle and in some ways he has reached out to Democrats.
King of my own universe..
Max
NYC
Unity
Unity just means "everyone has to agree with me." Obama is a facade. When you actually look at his stances and think about what he says, he is a hard lefty pretending to be JFK.
--Fern
imagine there's no heaven
I especially liked the part where Barack attacked excessive federal spending, promising to slash it dramatically.
He didn't? Oh.
His comments on Iraq are
His comments on Iraq are pandering to the Left. Short and divisive. The UN has praised US efforts to increase security leading to some real progress on the political level. Obama will be toast come the general election with such a small slanted take on Iraq. Gone are his remarks on Pakistan and no mention of Iran (wonder why anyone?) which Independents and Reagan Democrats know Obama capitulated on to the Left in trashing sanctions (while failing to vote).
Again, did Obama introduce a bill that would have sunk the Amnesty compromise? McCain will slap him for that. Was this being a uniter? Where was his agreement with Bush on Darfur? How principled. Instead he moves to the next car in his car lot and tries to sell a new message on the ecomony. There is little here that shows bipartisanship or centrism. He talks about going after the real terrorists, but who are they? Where are the human rights issue he talks about? This is a dude trying to scamper around anything that is "taking tough votes on controversial issues" let alone any pretense of being a uniter beyond uniting Kos with Huffington and NBC with CNN. You see, when he is able to talk purty to worshipping crowds, his crap flies. When debating or giving national speeches, the ethereal quality vanishes and he looks naked and hollow. Here is a guy that didn't give back Rezko money right away when he knew very well what the indictment was. He even bought more property. Now that might typical of conventional politicians but the pretense of Obama is what is absurd. And pretense is what this campaign of his is all about.
Yes, blame Bush for the economy and lay it at the feet of tax breaks a JFK might have endorsed. It is the rally cry now gearing up to win Edward supporters and then you'll have a ticket of Edwards and Obama v the vile, nasty, immoral and old Clintons. What a pathetic display of tact. Yes sir, its Bamalot featuring the unconventional wisdom of someone aiming much higher than reaching out. All Obama is reaching out is for more free passes and more to join is ethereal campaign. Roll up, its the magical mystery tour.
And this is a better play than Clinton? This makes the Clintons look humble and honest...LOL