Posted on 07/08/2008 4:03:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
"New and Not Improved," avers everyone's favorite left-wing establishment newspaper, the New York Times, in an editorial page headline. The reference isn't to John McCain. It's to Barack Obama, whom the Times' editorial writers and columnists have been suiting up for sainthood.
What's this, then? "[T]here seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings," the Times notes dejectedly. First the guy "broke his promise" to stay within public financing limits during the campaign. Then he "abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications," engaging in a "classic, cynical Washington deal ... " Then he "tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush's policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations," in contravention of the First Amendment. Then he "endorsed the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the District of Columbia's gun control law." Then -- indeed, there's more -- he criticized the court's decision overturning the death penalty in child rape cases.
The Times' feelings, editorially speaking, are bruised. " ... Mr. Obama's shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate conviction who did not play old political games."
The displeasure of the New York Times is always a large matter, as well we peasants (and veteran Times subscribers) know. But there's a matter at hand even larger: namely, the pitfalls of political hero worship. Even a Republican with a heart of stone -- hold on, all us Republicans have hearts of stone, don't we? -- owes the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee a sympathetic twinge. He's headed prospectively for a fall, this fall and afterwards.
Barack Obama didn't find the present moment so much as the present moment found Barack Obama. It invested him with the hopes and prayers of all who 1) don't care much for George Bush, 2) positively hate and abhor George Bush, 3) yearn to affirm a politician of mixed race, 4) can't wait to end "the war," 5) desire "change" of some sort, and 6) even find Obama personally appealing.
A lot of hopes will be riding on the man if he wins in November. Generally moderate Obama voters will forgive many of the positional shifts that political leaders usually find essential if they're to work with their opponents, as opposed to smashing, then stomping, on them. As it happens, smashing and stomping is the end game for many Democrats. Witness the Times' disillusionment.
A non-player of "the old political games" can't give an inch -- not on the Times' showing. Never mind that American voters at large aren't half (thank you, Lord) as left wing as the Times' editorial writers.
The left, after disposing of John McCain and as many Republican congressmen and senators as possible, means to romp as it hasn't romped at least since the Great Society, maybe even the New Deal. It means to get out of Iraq faster than you can say "al-Qaeda" -- with none of the hesitation Obama is presently showing ignoring the on-the-ground assessments of American generals. The left aims at national health care. It has no time for evangelicals or churches. It wants activist federal judges of the sort who are loath, in terrorism cases, to balance civil liberties with some respect for national security. The left wants steeper taxes on wealth and no more offshore oil drilling.
Will all this come to pass? Maybe not, if the Democratic presidential candidate can't be trusted to build occasional coalitions near the political center, where voters honor guns and religion more than they despise waterboarding and oil companies. What we're seeing is evidence that some necessary accommodations won't be easy to bring off, because whenever they're attempted Democratic alarm bells go off and the New York Times undertakes to lecture the Senate's most liberal member: Obama.
Victims stung by the Purist Bug in politics sometimes don't understand when they're well off -- which, from John McCain's standpoint, looks right now like a rich blessing.
Let’s cry the NYT a river.
Sorry you morons. Nothing has changed. Obama is who and what he was 1 year ago and 2 years ago. A lying liberal politician. You all just have so much Bush hate that you saw him through rose or maybe black colored glasses..
But why the disappointment? You guys always back lying liberal politicans............
diversity of thought doesn’t
complement sainthood.
Not to mention a third-rate political hack from Chicago. I remember seeing somewhere that he is the polar opposite of the fictional George Bailey -- nothing he has been a part of would have turned out any differently if he never even existed. Not one bill has passed or failed due to his vote and/or leadership. Not one dime of public assistance money would have wound up in different hands had he not been in charge.
It's scary that this guy is so bad that he makes Hillary Clinton look competent.
Obuma is a militant racist and nobody is talking about this. Where are the quotes from his books ? This is a media manufactured brainwashing and half of the idiots in the country are buying this BS. This militant communty activist isn’t qualified to be dog catcher.
The deniers can deny but there's consensus. And that is, the Nytimese are racists. Yep, debate is over.
Those Nytimen had better prostrate themselves -- and make it plenty quick, or else!
However, the issue raised here... “in contravention of the First Amendment” regarding funding of faith based initiatives is a red herring. Where to they get that from the First Amendment?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Rather than call Obama on his cynical manipulation they use a spurious argument that confuses the issue.
Well gosh, Obamie hasn’t even had a chance to clarify what he meant by all those flip-flops.
(Psst, hey NYT editorial staff-boys, Obamie is just trying to get elected and doesn’t mean any of that...keep it on the down-low man.)
Osama realizes his hero worship with the radicals will win te day. All of this doesn’t matter to them. They’re not voting issues!
That still leaves a lot of room on the left wing. Not comforting.
More cover fire for Obama — attempt to make his campaign lies and flip-flopping look like moderate politics.
November 2008 — Be There.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.