On Dec 5, 2008, at 7:32 PM, Chris Gehlker wrote: > > I'm puzzled by the fact that the NYT and the other MSM outlets keep > reporting so breathlessly when Obama does what he said he was going to > do rather than what Limbaugh said he was going to do.
No you're not. :-) This is why we all roll our eyes when people go on about the "liberal media". The fact is, you're absolutely right that Obama's been governing exactly the way he said he would. He's acting as a center-left pragmatist, which is how he presented himself, who's reacting to changing situations, which he repeatedly said he would do! Really, "center-left" is the pragmatic part of the political spectrum right now. Most liberals I know are pro-union, but recognize that unions, like any power structure, can become corrupted, are pro national health care of some sort, but largely because it's cheaper and more efficient, are pro-education because it's better for our long-term economy, and are anti-Iraq rather than anti-war, because the war in Iraq was so blatantly contrary to our national interests. It's the Limbaughs of the world who are interested in presenting such positions as radical left, but the fact is, in a world where a former Weatherman is keeping busy working on education reform in the Chicago public schools, there just isn't much of a radical left out there any more. There is a "naive left" still out there, I think, and CommonDreams sometimes feels like that to me, but I don't think that'll ever go away. We just have to hope that as they evolve as individuals, they turn into pragmatic liberals instead of neocons like Wolfowitz. :-) And regarding Chuck's points: > Let's see. He announced that the capital gains tax rate hikes might > be left to just expire instead of being rolled back as he promsied. > > The other day he said that he would no longer pursue a wind fall > profits tax on the oil companies though he didn't say how he would > fund the programs that he was going to use that money for > like energy credits for low income people. (that was also a promise) That's because there's no point in pursuing a "windfall" tax when gas prices have fallen enough that the oil companies aren't making "windfall" profits. I guarantee you'll see the proposal return if gas gets back up to $4/gallon. He'll fund the energy credits the same way he'll fund the pushback of the capital gains tax rollback: deficit spending. That's because the economy is far deeper in the shithole than it was during the bulk of the campaign (it only really went to shit around September, I think). During times like that, it makes sense for the government to spend money it doesn't technically have, risking inflation and debt in order to keep the economy going, because the risk of a Depression is higher. It's not a situation anybody wants to be in, and I resent that I'm going to be paying the price of inflation and higher national debt for the sake of a bullshit war and really stupid corporate financial practices (for which Bush, Clinton, and the Republican Congress all share a lot of blame), but it's a better idea than anything put forward by some of these Republicans who are suddenly getting religion about balanced budgets after six years in the drivers' seat and another two in a damned strong position, when wars were evidently free and tax cuts "paid for themselves". -Patrick _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
