Registered? Please log in below.
New? Please register.
Here are some reasons why.
Here's the Wall Street Journal's lead editorial on Friday:
In the closing weeks of last year's election campaign, we wrote that Democrats had in mind the most sweeping expansion of government in decades. Liberals clucked, but it turns out even we've been outbid. With yesterday's fiscal 2010 budget proposal, President Obama is attempting not merely to expand the role of the federal government but to put it in such a dominant position that its power can never be rolled back.
More than ever, I'm convinced we're in a liberal moment. But I spoke with a wise old friend today who said, No, that's not quite true. Look at the reaction to Rick Santelli.
I don't know that Santelli is a great example of simmering popular discontent with the liberal realignment -- how many viewers does Santelli have? How many people know who he is, even now? People are generally disgusted with big government, big business, big everything. But Obama is the only one on the political stage at the moment who is acting boldly. And in an era of Hope and Change, the old rule still applies: Who dares, wins.
Comments
Obama's 'Revolution'
I've been trying to push the "we're in a liberal moment" thoughts out of my head. But Reagan's election (and reelection) was a "conservative moment" that liberals had to endure. And, well, movements have their time. Suck it up, I think.
What makes me recoil, however, is how quickly this "liberal moment" is happening. Obama has been president for just 46 days. And he, along with a compliant Democratic Congress, are seizing "power [that] can never be rolled back" with blinding speed. And that is more than a bit troubling.
No one read the "stimulus" bill that represents more government spending in one fell swoop than anything in the history of man on Earth. And that's already becoming a distant memory. No need to read that bill now in all its horrible detail. That's (still unknown) history. And as Obama made clear in his address to Congress, that's just a "down payment." We've got Tarp III on the horizon (or is it Tarp 15, I lost track) — not to mention the regular omnibus spending bill spending who know's what and granting more power to the government that's coming down the pike right now.
Soon enough, these measures will also be not discussed in any meaningful way. They'll just be passed. And then we're on to the next huge leap in reordering the governed's relationship with the governors — continuing the dishonest and recklessly expensive cycle. I never thought that I'd be able to so quickly dismiss the idea of doing extensive research to defend Bush's profligate spending compared to Obama and the Democrats in Congress.
I quite remember Reagan's "revolution" taking a bit longer than a few months — as any "revolution" in America should take.
If Obama ran on any of the policies he's cramming down our throats today, he would have taken exactly zero of the Red States he did to gain election in November. That is not an insignificant point. And, that's, as I said, more than a bit troubling.
Only one quibble
Due respect, I think there's a little forgetting going on here.
Obama did run on the idea that taxes would go up for people making more than $250,000 a year -- it was that proposal, in fact, that gave us both Joe The Plumber and the socialism meme that dominated the last weeks of the campaign.
Obama did run on expanding access to and reforming healthcare: It was a major bone of contention during the primary campaign because Hillary Clinton and her supporters charged that Obama's plan didn't go far enough.
He did promise big new investments in green energy and an effort to reduce oil consumption. That's why we got cries of "drill baby drill" during the GOP convention.
I'm not going to make the case that Obama told us everything that was coming. But the broad outlines were certainly clear enough -- and debated widely enough -- that John McCain and the conservative establishment were making the case against them last fall. That's why Ben at one point -- I can't find the link -- suggested that Barack Obama was the most liberal presidential candidate of recent years. And yet: Obama still got some red states.
Post new comment