Breaking: Obama's a Liberal

I guess Politico was looking for a way to endear Barack Obama to Democratic primary voters by revealing that he has liberal views on some issues. Or, as they put it, "Liberal Views Could Haunt Obama." This answer on health care seems, for example, totally sensible:

Will you support a single-payer health plan for Illinois? How would Medicaid be incorporated into the program you support?

Yes in principle, although such a program will probably have to be instituted at the federal level; the long-term objective would be a universal care system that does not differentiate between the unemployed, the disabled, and so on. The state can move more aggressively to expand coverage to the currently uninsured, perhaps through a managed care system with a sliding scale of premiums and copayments.

Shudder! Longtime readers will know that I'm not a proponent of gun control. Obama, like essentially all politicians from big cities, was a proponent of very strict gun control and, again like all politicians who move to start representing broader constituencies, has now softened his view (see, e.g., Rudy Giuliani's similar evolutioN).

Comments

Everything that ever happens anywhere is bad for Democrats, and anything that ever happened means that liberals are even worse. Right?

Posted by El Cid | December 11, 2007 1:39 PM

If it weren't for Politico, how would anyone know that Obama is black and liberal?

Posted by southpaw | December 11, 2007 1:43 PM

Southpaw, that would be funny except for the fact that people (including many so-called liberals) have questioned whether he is, indeed, "black enough" and/or "liberal enough." Sigh. We do love to eat our own, don't we?

Posted by girlwonder | December 11, 2007 1:50 PM

why oh why did you not link to a post of yours on gun control?!?

As a huge gun-control fan who has been made restless by the issue's dormant status on the national level for the last decade or so, i would really like to get all revved up by reading some pro-gun post by someone i actually respect and whose opinion I value.. Now i am going to have to go read the drivel at Redstate or townhall just to get my blood-boiling.
This disgrace shall not be so forgotten!

Posted by bend | December 11, 2007 1:52 PM

"Liberal Views Could Haunt Obama"

I'll put down a hundred dollars right now that we'll never, never see The Politico put up a headline that reads "Conservative Views Could Haunt Giuliani" or "Conservative Views Could Haunt Romney."

Because, as all obedient mainstream reporters know, conservatives are solid, sensible moderates while liberals are wild-eyed raving loonies.....

*sigh*

Posted by Stefan | December 11, 2007 2:03 PM

A liberal politician with broad appeal?

Inconceivable!

Posted by DTM | December 11, 2007 2:06 PM

I'll put down a hundred dollars right now that we'll never, never see The Politico put up a headline that reads "Conservative Views Could Haunt Giuliani" or "Conservative Views Could Haunt Romney."

This is complicated. The evidence suggests that neither Giuliani nor Romney actually hold the fairly dogmatic conservative views that they're campaigning on. This hypocrisy is, of course, terrible news for the Democrats.

Posted by southpaw | December 11, 2007 2:09 PM

Howard Dean should make up a bumper sticker/poster saying "Jesus is a Liberal".

He is , you know. Just read Matthew 25:41-46.

Maybe we could spread a few million such posters and bumper stickers around the Southern Bible Belt. Kinda remind them that Southern Baptists should stand for something other than human slavery.

Posted by Don Williams | December 11, 2007 2:25 PM

Well, check out Jerome Armstrong at MyDD. http://mydd.com/story/2007/12/11/13220/987

He thinks "Obama's a liberal" + "Obama's a post-partisan rhetoritician" = electoral disaster. This certainly is the flip side of your post the other day that Obama's rhetorical style allows him to win over independents and moderate dems while remaining a progressive. I guess it matters whether you think the bigger effect of the rhetoric is on your own base or on the moderates. Or in Jerome's case, if you assume there are very few moderates, the rhetoric does more harm than good. Either way, you guys need to debate this some more.

Posted by npopp | December 11, 2007 2:40 PM

Well, check out Jerome Armstrong at MyDD. http://mydd.com/story/2007/12/11/13220/987

He thinks "Obama's a liberal" + "Obama's a post-partisan rhetoritician" = electoral disaster. This certainly is the flip side of your post the other day that Obama's rhetorical style allows him to win over independents and moderate dems while remaining a progressive. I guess it matters whether you think the bigger effect of the rhetoric is on your own base or on the moderates. Or in Jerome's case, if you assume there are very few moderates, the rhetoric does more harm than good. Either way, you guys need to debate this some more.

Posted by npopp | December 11, 2007 2:42 PM

Re Matthew's comment "Longtime readers will know that I'm not a proponent of gun control"

1) As a former member of the NRA, neither am I. But even I find something hypocritical about NRA leaders.

Those leaders argued during Clinton's administration that we need to accept 10,000 homicides per year so that we can keep our guns and become terrorists if the US government ever bacame a dictatorship in the far distant future.

2) Then that that same NRA leadership turned around and elected a George Bush who is creating a dictatorship today.

Bush allows US citizens to be imprisoned without a hearing before a judge -- NRA does nothing.

3) Bush performs massive spying on the American people without warrants?
NRA does nothing.

Bush uses torture on US prisoners?
NRA does nothing.

Well, actually they did give a few Million to reelect Bush and Cheney. Plus they had that sweet young man give Republican Larry Craig one of the NRA's highest honors -- see http://www.nraila.org/Multimedia/MMPlayer_Set.aspx?id=75

4) Maybe it's not hypocrisy --maybe it's cowardice. We sure haven't heard any of that "From my Cold Dead Hands" bullshit recently.

Something tells me that Wayne LaPierre would be about as brave in leading a resistance movement as ,say, the Democratic Members of Congress.

5) If you're not willing to give up dining in those fancy restaurants and invitations to those fancy parties, you're not likely wanting to face actual physical danger.

After all, you're not living in poor neighborhoods. So you can ignore those 10,000 homicides per year as well.

Posted by Don Williams | December 11, 2007 2:44 PM

"again like all politicians who move to start representing broader constituencies, has now softened his view"

Um, make that "language"; We don't actually have anything beyond their unsupported word to indicate their views on the subject have changed, and the evidentiary weight of a politician's unsupported and politically expedient statements is next to nothing.

Don, Bush hasn't imposed any gun control that I've noticed. You ARE familiar with the concept of a "single interest lobby"? The NRA happens to be one.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | December 11, 2007 3:20 PM

Re Brett Bellmore's comment "You ARE familiar with the concept of a "single interest lobby"? The NRA happens to be one."
----------
Well, the NRA leadership argued that their "single interest" was in preserving "freedom".

That the purpose of the Second Amendment wasn't to protect" duck hunting".

Remember their campaign slogan "Vote Freedom First"??

Which, in hindsight, is kinda hilarious given who they were backing.

Posted by Don Williams | December 11, 2007 3:47 PM

Hey Don -

What'd you think of the militia movement of the mid-90s?

Posted by Senescent | December 11, 2007 3:55 PM

'Well, the NRA leadership argued that their "single interest" was in preserving "freedom". '

The NRA's single interest is not frreedom. Nor is it to oppose gun laws. The NRA's sole interest is selling guns to make money. Why ordinary people want to belong to the NRA is a mystery to me. It's like paying dues to the American Petroleum Institute because you like using gas fueled cars.

Posted by Njorl | December 11, 2007 4:00 PM

Barack Obama is a liberal who listens to conservatives, and rather than shut them out, includes them in our democracy. As such, he can bring liberal policy to the table AND create concensus in our nation. That's what this country needs.

Posted by katharine | December 11, 2007 4:07 PM

Re Senescent's comment "Hey Don - What'd you think of the militia movement of the mid-90s?"
-------------
1) I think that "You don't need a Weatherman to tell you which way the wind's a blowing".

2) I also think that it's kinda stupid for a real insurgent to go on national TV in camouflage uniforms (or to even wear camouflage uniforms) and talk about attacking the government. Or to have public meetings --where the FBI infiltrators probably outnumbered the true believers.

3) Buying a REGISTERED assault rife is kinda hilarious as well.

Posted by Don Williams | December 11, 2007 4:09 PM

"The NRA's sole interest is selling guns to make money. Why ordinary people want to belong to the NRA is a mystery to me. "

It will always be a mystery to people who desperately want to believe there aren't really that many people opposed to gun control. Because if there are, ultimate victory for the gun control movement is a fool's dream.

But there are. And it is.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | December 11, 2007 5:04 PM

"I also think that it's kinda stupid for a real insurgent to go on national TV in camouflage uniforms (or to even wear camouflage uniforms) and talk about attacking the government."

Remember that line from Dr. Strangelove? "Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"

If you're an 'insurgent' because you want to overthrow an existing government, yeah, it's pretty stupid to go public.

If your point is to deter said government from becoming a tyranny by threatening an insurgency if and only if it DOES become a tyranny, on the other hand... If you don't let the people you're trying to threatening know that you're threatening them, they can't very well be deterred, now can they?

The militia movement didn't "threaten to attack the government". It threatened to attack the government if the government became tyrannical. This is, of course, a distinction opponents of the movement didn't feel any need to notice. But it's none the less a very real and important distinction.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | December 11, 2007 5:12 PM

Well, to get in the middle here, since I'm not for gun control either (obviously, being an anarchist), the fact that the NRA and Republicans pretty much overlap as demographic groups should be fairly obvious. So it's no surprise that you don't hear the NRA denouncing Bush or other Repubs.

Those NRA members who are "paleo-conservatives" might, but you won't hear most of the membership or leadership doing that.

Besides, the membership and the leadership know damn well that the Democrats ARE for gun control - so bashing Republicans would put them between a rock and a hard place in practice if not in principle.

Finally, the NRA definition of "freedom" IS a "single issue" definition. The NRA isn't called the "National Freedom Association", it's called the "National Rifle Association". (And that isn't even precise, because it excludes handguns. They should be the "National Gun Association.")

As an aside, the fact that the Second Amendment is intended to provide a defense against tyranny from the central government in no way changes the fact that in this country today, you can't find ten people willing to take up arms against the central government - no matter how bad the central government gets. Neither does that fact detract from the purpose of the Second Amendment.

The problem is that anybody who thinks gun registration is going to control the homicide rate is simply deluded. And anybody who thinks weapons can be banned is also simply deluded. You can't ban drugs and you can't ban guns. All you can do is create an even bigger black market than already exists for unregistered weapons.

The single biggest act that would reduce the homicide rate in poor neighborhoods is the de-criminalization of drugs. When lower class criminals are forced back to stealing hub caps, they aren't likely to be shooting each other over hub caps. They might get shot in liquor store holdups, but most of those are done to pay for drugs anyway.

It's a very simple circle. If you're poor, you're at risk of crime or you're participating in crime. So you need a gun. If you need a gun, you'll get a gun. If enough people need a gun, you get a market for guns. If guns are banned, the market is going to be a black market. Now you've got more crime, not less.

The necessary element here is poverty. Although rich people shoot each other from time to time, I really don't see an epidemic of it. If you want to stop (lower class) crime, stop poverty.

To stop poverty, you have to stop upper class and state crime.

Email me when this happens.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 11, 2007 5:26 PM

Re Brett Bellmore's comment "If you don't let the people you're trying to threatening know that you're threatening them, they can't very well be deterred, now can they? "
--------------
And how were they deterred?

They scrapped habeas corpus -- the 1000 year old law that said a citizen couldn't be imprisoned without a hearing before an independent judge and a trial by jury.

They doubled the budget for the federal standing army.

They doubled the budget for the intel community and set that community to conducting massive spying on US citizens without a warrent or review by the judicial branch.

They made torture acceptable.

They created a $60 Bil/year Department of Homeland Security and a new US military command --Northcom -- for the sole purpose of waging war within the continental US.

The defense contractors who have been focused on the Soviet Union for 60 years now have a new growth industry --focusing on the American people. Er.. excuse me, "protecting the infrastructure". And they are pouring millions into congressional campaigns in order to keep that gravy train rolling.

So, excuse me, but if you were growling at our masters then it seems to me that they merely said "Nice Doggy" and then picked up a very big rock. And they used your own NRA contributions, votes, and political principles against you.

Ha ha ha ha. Don't you just hate it when that happens?

Posted by Don Williams | December 11, 2007 6:09 PM

The 2nd amendment(individual rights version) is defended by the gun industry, and other industries don't really care.

The 1st amendment has the entertainment industry to some extent, but on the other hand they're obsessed with their intellectual property.

The 4th amendment seems to lack corporate defenders entirely.

No wonder we got an NRA approved tyrant like Bush.

Posted by zxcvbnm | December 11, 2007 6:19 PM

"And how were they deterred?"

The growth of the militia movement was fueled by outrage over a growing tendency of the government to commit what can only be described as atrocities against it's own citizens. Ruby Ridge. Waco. Numerous other smaller incidents that got less press coverage. Reaching back, the MOVE firebombing. It was getting to be more and more common.

I haven't noticed any recent cases of federal or state law enforcement burning people to death in their own homes. Either the press are derelict in their duties, or somebody DID eventually get deterred.

Z, the NRA is not the firearms industry, and it doesn't matter how many times anti-gun loons claim it is, it won't stop being a mass movement of the sort the gun control movement conspicuously is NOT.

Bringing this back to topic, Obama, like Guliani, has a record of supporting gun control, and not moderate gun control, either. Some pretty harsh measures, like banning all semi-automatic firearms. Now he's changed his tune, just when it has become politically expedient to do so.

You have to be pretty gullible to fall for that sort of thing.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | December 11, 2007 6:34 PM

When will all you gunnies can the high-blown justifications and just come out and admit that you like to play with guns, that you like to fondle them, stick them in your pocket, collect them, shoot and kill things with them? It's recreational, just like a lot of drugs. Most people who use the latter no longer try to give those '60s "spiritual" reasons anymore: it's just fun. So knock off the "freedom" nonsense; you're not fooling anybody.

Posted by Henderstock | December 11, 2007 9:04 PM

Re Henderstock's comment "When will all you gunnies can the high-blown justifications and just come out and admit that you like to play with guns, that you like to fondle them, stick them in your pocket"
-----------
Sigh.

To paraphrase OJ Simpson, IF i owned guns then I would point out that anyone really familar with guns doesn't do that --because guns are simply tools. It would be like fondling a screwdriver or a clawhammer.

It is gun phobics who project all this psychological bullshit onto to guns for some reason. Maybe because they once peeked into their parent's bedroom , saw their father with a hardon , and fled in terror. Have ever since had a strong fear of cylindrical objects which
spit out emission.

But at the same time, have such people ever have a strange urge for someone to come up behind them and poke them in the back with a gun. A little lower than the back ,actually.

Posted by Don Williams | December 11, 2007 9:32 PM

There are "gun nuts" - collectors who have just as much enthusiasm for their guns as comic book collectors, stamp collectors, or any other kind of collector.

There are also people who see guns as useful tools, on a par with personal computers, cars, trucks, boats, planes, electronic gadgets, carpentry or metal working tools, etc.

The people who crafted the Second Amendment were not "gun nuts."

The purpose of the Second Amendment does not depend on and is irrelevant to the existence of "gun nuts", cops, military, hunters, terrorists, criminals or any other classification of weapons user.

That should resolve that issue.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 12, 2007 7:02 AM

Re "The purpose of the Second Amendment does not depend on and is irrelevant to the existence of "gun nuts", "
-----------
I concur. I strongly oppose gun control. What I was pointing out was that the NRA leadership --by its craven support for Bush/Republicans -- has damaged the Second Amendment far more than the gun control advocates ever could.

The Democrats will gain power --because the country votes on issues beyond gun control -- and the Democrats will have a long memory of how the NRA leadership shifted its donations from roughly 50-50 split between the two parties to giving over 90 percent to the Republicans starting around 2000.

Plus if you support a dictator, it's kinda hard to later argue that the country should accept the negetive aspects of widespread gun ownership (10,000 homicides/year) just to deter the possible rise of a dictator sometime in the far future.

Read the definition of "terrorism" crafted by the Bush Administration sometime. By that definition, America's Founding Fathers were terrorists.

Posted by Don Williams | December 12, 2007 9:37 AM