View Full Version : Washington Post - Obama revealed: A moderate Republican

04-26-2011, 07:47 PM
Obama revealed: A moderate Republican (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-revealed-a-moderate-republican/2011/04/25/AFPrGfkE_story.html?hpid=z2)

Ezra Klein
April 25, 2011

America is mired in three wars. The past decade was the hottest on record. Unemployment remains stuck near 9 percent, and there’s a small, albeit real, possibility that the U.S. government will default on its debt. So what’s dominating the news? A reality-television star who can’t persuade anyone that his hair is real is alleging that the president of the United States was born in Kenya.

Perhaps this is just the logical endpoint of two years spent arguing over what Barack Obama is — or isn’t. Muslim. Socialist. Marxist. Anti-colonialist. Racial healer. We’ve obsessed over every answer except the right one: President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican of the early 1990s. And the Republican Party he’s facing has abandoned many of its best ideas in its effort to oppose him.





Bill Kristol calls Obama "Born-Again Neo-con" (http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/30/bill-kristol-declares-obama-a-born-again-neo-con-days-after-consulting-with-him-on-libya-policy/)

Daily Caller
March 30, 2011

On Wednesday’s “Red Eye” on the Fox News Channel, Kristol took things a step further and declared Obama “a born-again neo-con.”

Host Greg Gutfeld asked Kristol how he felt about Obama coming to him for help (reportedly the president had met with him and others prior to his Monday night address).

“He didn’t come to me for help, of course,” Kristol said. “I’m not going to acknowledge that. He came to me to make sure I was supporting his sound policies. Of course, since his sound policies are more like the policies people like me have been advocating for quite a while, I’m happy to support them. He’s a born-again neo-con.”

04-26-2011, 07:47 PM
Professor Carroll Quigley explains why United States Policy doesn't change:


The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

- Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/094500110X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=094500110X) (1966), p. 1247-1248

Power and Influence of the Council on Foreign Relations


http://www.shopjbs.org/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/S/h/Shadows_of_Power_web.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0882791346/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=0882791346)

The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0882791346/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=0882791346)

Does America have a hidden oligarchy? Is U.S. foreign policy run by a closed shop? What is the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)? It began in 1921 as a front organization for J.P. Morgan and Company. By World War II it had acquired unrivaled influence on American foreign policy. Hundreds of U.S. government administrators and diplomats have been drawn from its ranks - regardless of which party has occupied the White House. But what does the Council on Foreign Relations stand for? Why do the major media avoid discussing it? What has been its impact on America's past - and what is it planning for the future? (2008, 272pp, pb)

04-26-2011, 07:59 PM
Interesting article, but the Washington Post is being disingenuous about the cap and trade issue. I don't know of anyone who will debate whether or not sulfur dioxide is a poison. But the idea that plant food (carbon dioxide) is actually a pollutant is highly debated. When it comes to global warming the "problem" (whether it actually exists or not) is as highly debated as the "solution". That said, this is more ammo to sink Newt Gingrich's campaign should that become necessary.

04-26-2011, 10:03 PM
Just like how Bush was a moderate Democrat.