A rare opportunity to change the face of politics
When the topic of conversation is politics, millions of Americans are disinterested. Many Americans have been disenchanted with the political gridlock of Washington and the divisive nature of our country’s recent politics.
On the campaign stump, Obama promised a spirit of bipartisanship for his presidency. Recently, Obama selected several conservatives for his cabinet. He retains Robert Gates as his Secretary of Defense. He chooses Jim Jones, former Marine commandant and Supreme Commander of NATO, as his National Security Advisor.
Will President-elect Obama change the divisive politics of old?
A photo by BohPhoto, a Flickr.com user, shown under Creative Commons
Carol E. Lee and Nia-Malika Henderson of The Politico reports, “Liberals are growing increasingly nervous - and some just flat-out angry - that President-elect Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.”
“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it’s all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.”
In “Liberals Wonder When Obama’s Team Will Reflect Them,” Peter Baker of the New York Times reports that “the choices have deeply frustrated liberals who thought Mr. Obama’s election signaled the rise of a new progressive era.”
“Obama’s appointments have tilted so much to the political center that they have drawn praise from the likes of Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh,” writes Baker. Many liberals, Baker says, are “muting their protest, clinging to the belief that Mr. Obama still means what he said on the campaign trail and remaining wary of undermining what they see as the most liberal president sent to the White House in a generation.”
With political capital on hand and a 58-seat Democratic Senate majority, President-elect Obama is presented with the rare opportunity to move in a bipartisan way that may change the face of our politics.
Excellent article. Things like this need to be written to show that we Republicans aren’t going to play the partisan politics game either. Obama wasn’t my choice for pres. but let’s join together and help him be a great president.
I have to agree with Thoephilus, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted until Obama actually DOES something. All of this speculation over whether or not he will govern in the center or on the left or whatever is just that — speculation. Cabinet choices do not a political platform make. Remember that cabinet members are more administrators than policy makers. They can set the tone for their respective agencies, but they themselves can’t craft policy. Guess who actually does that….
That would be the democratically controlled, Pelosi-and-Reid-led Congress. Obama won’t show me he’s “governing from the center” until he actually lobbies to pass bills that are centrist in nature or vetoes bills that are too extreme. Will inevitable larger auto bailout coming under an Obama administration face a veto? I don’t think so. Will he veto the Freedom of Choice act when it comes past his desk? Nope. Will he appoint centrist judges? Only time will tell, but with a democratic congress sympathetically vetting progressive candidates, I doubt it. I am not pinning any of my *cough* hopes and dreams *cough* on Obama, at least not until he actually makes some real moves.
Okay, while I agree that we need to see what the president elect actually does after he takes office,lets be fair here…if there is an automobile bailout, it should happen now, during the Bush administration.
As far as the ” Freedom of choice ” act goes, do not expect Obama to vote on this matter the way you folks would like him too.
His views on this matter have already been laid out.
Like it or not, this will be a democratic run Washington, for at least the next four years ( I do not think that Obama will have the staying power when all is said and done ) to garner another four year term, and as far as him doing something now, well, he is not the President NOW is he ( and I do not mean the aforementioned as I am angry )if anything can still be done in the moment by George Bush, then he as the present man in the oval office should do what ever is necessary.
Just because you are an outgoing or Lameduck president, doesn’t mean you have to act like one.
@ Mark - I respect your desire to “rise above” politics but this is exactly what McCain stood for and very little else. This cost him support of Conservatives and the slim chance he had of winning the election. I am in agreement that Republicans shouldn’t “play the partisan politics game”. This is no game. The Founding Fathers had no time for gamesmanship, they were principled partisans not political partisans. It is not the job of the few remaining principled Republicans and Conservatives in Congress or in the US at large to “help him be a great president”. I will support and defend my Constitution, not a politician. If one agrees on legislation being consistent with the Constitution and the intent of the Framers than so be it, it should be supported regardless of party. But I will no more be an apologist for Obama as I am for Bush. It is the loss of principle that has ruined politics, not the absence of the feel good let’s all just get along milktoast poltics of John McCain, Rinos and their Democratic counterparts.
Lest you think that he is some great harbinger of political peace and good tidings, he defeated the Clinton machine, raised over a half billion dollars, neutered (with the help of their complicancy) the Republican party and is a graduate of the machine-ridden cesspool of the Chicago School of Politics. If you need a primer on that, refer to Blagojevich, Ryan, Daley, Gutierrez, Durbin, Rezko et al.
Well said Wiseman. “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” I may have butchered that quote. Nonetheless, Republicans should not apologize for any principled stand. We will be called “rascists,bitter gun-clingers, narrow minded, rich, greedy, unpatriotic.” Oh wait, we have already been called those things. Perhapse change will be some new insults because nothing else is changing. My only point worth making is this, we must choose our fights carefully. We must be able to explain what ideas we are standing against rather than simply painting the opposition with a broad brush.
@ Theo - Agreed that our positions must be principled, firm and most of all consistent. Conservatism is not about small government for agencies and programs we don’t like and massive unchecked spending for one’s we do. This is not a buffet and the Tax Payer Cafe. I welcome the insults because a. It puts me in good company with the Founding Fathers and b. I can sleep easy at night knowing I’m still principled. And if those labels are the biggest flaw that can be found with Conservative principles, it matters not if we are in political power so long as we can carry the moral authority to contribute to the process.
Slow but steady thanks for asking! I’m still focusing on being thoroughly grounded and rightfully humbled by the Constitution and contempory writings, but I have started putting feelers out into the local Republican party machinery to see how welcomed my efforts will be. Haven’t formally declared yet, but I think that will be how I celebrate Inaguration Day.
@ Lew: I can tell you aren’t too happy with Bush, and I see why - you are right, he is the president right now, and he has the responsibility to act. I was only trying to point out that it is kinda silly to read the tea leaves of Obama’s cabinet appointments in an attempt to divine his agenda for the next four years. It’s not that his appointments guarantee he’ll be liberal or ineffective, just as they don’t indicate with certainty that he will be center-right or effective. They hardly indicate anything at all, and that’s my point.
@ Theo and Chris - you are absolutely correct, and I’m glad to have other founderphiles here. That being said, we must tread carefully. If Obama is the party of “Yes We Can,” we absolutely cannot become the party of “Yes We Can, but…”. We’ll never win that fight. We have to provide real alternatives, not just a smaller version of what the democrats are proposing. That will be our challenge when Obama actually puts pen to paper and starts enacting the legislation that will define his administration.
Principled right, makes political might.
@ Fox
Excellent point. I believe that the GOP has spent too much time giving commentary on the Democrats rather than leading the nation. For instance, we see cons oppose the bailout, lessen the bailout or justify the bailout. I haven’t seen a national con. come up with a better idea and actually try to get it through. Does no one in the GOP have an idea that is worthy of a congressional scrap?
@ Theo - I have to redirect to Ron Paul. He’s been advocating the elimination of the Fed which has fallen on deaf ears for years because eliminating it is only convenient when its Dems in control and the GOP won’t risk losing the leverage it has on manipulating the economy when they are in Congressional/Presidential control. How bout a 100% bank reserve policy which would forever end the necessity of banks to be bailed out at the expense of the taxpayers?
Its an interesting idea, but you’d have to find a commodity with enough value and enough supply to guard against an increase in product prices due to the high demand such a commodity-based currency would entail in our modern, high tech, commodity-consumption economy.
Boris, what if we didn’t? What if we, as the American public, insisted that banks make good loans? Don’t you think that the consumers are a pretty good balance to the abuses of the market by a few? If not, I vote for the gold standard.
Chris:
You’d have bank runs with a 100% reserve policy, if there were any panic striking news. With no central bank to borrow from, the bank would fold immediately. You need an entity with large enough cash reserves to cover deposits, and loaned/traded on by the bank.
Historically in 1907, JPMorgan (the banker not the bank) tried to prop up a panic in the country’s financial system (he basically played the role of the fed by himself). This was the precursor to the Fed being established in 1913.
People who don’t study history, are doomed to repeat it
Is the Federal Reserve the best way to go? I think there need to be some modifications to it. For instance, didn’t we just bail out a Fed bank when New York Citi was in danger of going under?
Leave a comment!
Latest Video
Recent Events
View more photos >
Connect On
Subscribe
© 2009 The New Republicans. All rights reserved. By using this site, you accept our Terms of Use.