After November, Obama will NOT be like Clinton

Some people think Obama will become more "centrist", like Clinton did when Republicans won big in the middle of his first term. But will he? In this interview, Dinesh D'Souza believes the answer is "no":

Dinesh D’Souza on the Anti-Colonial Business
Explaining President Obama, rereading Dreams from My Father.

Dinesh D’Douza’s new book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage, has a reputation that precedes it — in large part due to some advance buzz from Newt Gingrich and a piece in Forbes. Now that the book is on shelves, in a conversation with NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez, Dinesh D’Souza seeks to set the record straight about The Roots, and Obama.

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: What makes you so sure you know how Obama thinks?

DINESH D’SOUZA: It’s really simple: I figure out how Obama thinks by reading what Obama writes and says. My theory about Obama is really derived from Obama himself. It’s quite silly how people are saying things like, well, Obama didn’t really know his absentee father, so he couldn’t have been influenced by him. Go read his book, starting with the title Dreams from My Father. The whole book is about how Obama shaped his values, personality, and identity in the image of his father. So I took Obama at his word on this and then asked the question, “If Obama took his father’s anti-colonial ideology, how does that help to explain his policies?” Not only does it explain Obama’s foreign and domestic policy, it also explains lots of little details about Obama’s actions that no other theory can explain.

[...]

LOPEZ: Much of your argument could have been made during the presidential campaign — based on Barack Obama’s own writings. Why is it new and important now?

D’SOUZA: My argument is relevant now because if we know what motivates Obama, we have his compass. Not only can we explain what he is doing, but we can also predict what he is going to do in the future. For instance, there is a lot of speculation now about whether Obama will be a centrist after the midterm election, like Bill Clinton became after 1994. My theory says that he won’t because he cannot. Clinton was largely a non-ideological guy. If Obama came by his liberalism in the faculty lounge, then sure, he can see it hasn’t worked and he can modify it. But if Obama got his formative ideas when he was very young, and if they are the result of his traumatic relationship with his father, then they are built into his psyche. He’s not going to change because, to his anti-colonial mindset, meeting the Republicans halfway is a form of sellout. He would be untrue to his principles if he were to cut deals with a group that he considers to be the neocolonial party. [...]

Interesting. In any case, we shall see.

More about Obama's anti-colonial mindset:

LOPEZ: What are some clear examples of how this anti-colonialist mindset can be seen in the presidency of Barack Obama?

D’SOUZA: Ramesh Ponnuru and others say Obama is a conventional liberal. But conventional liberals don’t come out for the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Conventional liberals don’t return the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. Conventional liberals don’t block oil drilling in America while subsidizing oil drilling in Brazil. Conventional liberals don’t try to turn the space agency NASA into a Muslim-outreach program.

My anti-colonial theory beautifully explains all these facts. If Obama views America as the neocolonial occupier of Iraq and Afghanistan, then Muslims fighting against America are anti-colonial resisters and deserve a measure of sympathy; no wonder Obama has no problem with releasing the Lockerbie bomber. Obama hates Churchill because Churchill was the prime minister who cracked down on an anti-colonial uprising in Kenya, one in which Obama’s father and grandfather were both arrested. Obama’s oil-drilling double standard is fully understandable when you see that he wants the neocolonial oppressors to have less and the former colonized countries to have more. If Obama sees NASA as a symbol of American power — not only are we the world’s superpower, but now we are trying to colonize space — then we can see why he might want to convert NASA into a symbol of international achievement, not American greatness. So plug in the anti-colonial theory and you can explain the facts; remove it and Obama’s behavior becomes almost impossibly difficult to account for. [...]

Read the whole interview. It goes on to demonstrate how Obama's views toward socialism follow closely in the footsteps of his father. It explains a lot. It also explains why the media has been attacking D'Souza's book so vorciferously, and why some of his critics are trying to discredit him by claiming he's a "birther"; an accusation he dispells in the interview, by pointing out that in his book he clearly states that he believes that Obama was born in Hawaii.

When leftists can't counter the message, they always start lying about the messenger. It's despicable.


Related Link:

The Roots of Obama's Rage
     

Bipartisianship? Not without genuine liberals

Gerard Alexander: Why are liberals so condescending?

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

[...]

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

[...]

Indeed, when the president met with House Republicans in Baltimore recently, he assured them that he considers their ideas, but he then rejected their motives in virtually the same breath.

"There may be other ideas that you guys have," Obama said. "I am happy to look at them, and I'm happy to embrace them. . . . But the question I think we're going to have to ask ourselves is, as we move forward, are we going to be examining each of these issues based on what's good for the country, what the evidence tells us, or are we going to be trying to position ourselves so that come November, we're able to say, 'The other party, it's their fault'?" [...]

I'm tired of this grandstanding. The article goes into great detail, with many examples, of how the left refuses to listen to anything the right has to say. Yet it also acknowleges some similar resistance on the right, though it claims it's less prevelant.

Liberal isn't a dirty word to me, so I hate the way the word is used in this article. But it gets used like this, because so many people who are calling themselves liberal are really anything but.

A genuine liberal is easygoing, open-minded, and is flexible; not rigidly ideological. I think that description fits a lot of independents and people near the political center: conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Their voices need to be heard more, because it is they who can bring about genuine bipartisan consensus where it's desperately needed.

All the rest of it is too much fiddling, while Rome burns. Enough already.
     

Is it a GOP comeback? Or lesser of two evils?

It's an interesting trend, but if people are merely voting against the Democrats by voting Republican, then the GOP had best not get over-confident, by trying to count their chickens before they've hatched:


G.O.P. Envisions Northeast Comeback

[...] The independents who swing New England elections abandoned the party as the Bush era drew to a close. They were in revolt over the war in Iraq, the struggling economy and the strong strain of Southern social conservatism that was dominating national Republican politics. It was crushing for the remaining Republicans in a section of the country that once saw itself as the foundation of the party.

But Republicans see Mr. Brown’s win — and an earlier victory in the New Jersey governor’s race — as evidence that independents are moving back their way, a possible harbinger of good things to come.

[...]

But they should not get too far ahead of themselves. They still face difficult challenges in most of those states, given Democratic demographic advantages. And off-year and special election Republican victories in Democratic territory offer no certainty of winning in the more heavily contested midterm elections, with their accompanying greater turnout. Also, ideological divisions being exhibited in primaries in Connecticut and New Hampshire in particular could ultimately cost Republicans.

Still, they have reason to be optimistic after being nearly wiped off New England’s political map. One reason is that the current national political fight is centering more on the economic issues that are part of the fabric of New England political ideology, rather than the divisive social issues that can drive less conservative Republicans away from the party.

“What’s fueling the resurgence of Northern Republicans is public anger over the economy and an impression among New England voters that ‘big government’ is back with a vengeance,” said Bob Stevenson, a former senior Senate Republican aide who has long worked in New England politics. “New Englanders tend to believe in fiscal restraint, self-rule and self-sufficiency.”

The addition of even a few moderate Republicans to the Senate could change the dynamic in that institution. Conservatives are so dominant now that Ms. Collins and Ms. Snowe face intense pressure to vote with their party, particularly after they broke ranks to provide the crucial votes to pass the economic stimulus measure early in 2009. Mr. Castle, should he prevail, would add another strong and experienced moderate voice.

The philosophical direction Mr. Brown intends to take remains to be seen, but even his fellow Republicans said he could not compile a heavily conservative voting record and expect to be re-elected in Massachusetts in 2012 when his partial term ends.

Ms. Snowe, typically a favorite target of Democrats as they try to build a 60-vote bloc to break filibusters, said that Republicans representing Democratic states — or vice versa — tend to push the debate toward the middle to appease their diverse political constituencies.

“Having those countervailing voices really creates the inclination and propensity for drafting centrist-based positions,” Ms. Snowe said. [...]

Maybe what we are seeing is a victory for centrists.

The Republicans have an opportunity here, but they could easily blow it, if they insist on making the Republican party a purist ideology, instead of using it as a political vehicle to be cooperatively used by a large diverse base, to achieve goals the members all have in common.

This means not kicking people out when they are not ideologically rigid, being flexible, letting states make their own choices about how they want their Republicans to be.

We don't need a GOP dominated by the South, or the North either. What good would it do to gain the North, but then lose the South? If we emphasize fiscal issues as our spearhead, and keep social issues, the culture wars, primarily fought in our culture more than our legislature, I think we have a good chance of a comeback. But if the Republicans continue to support big government, and continue to push legislation to control controversial social issues, then I doubt we stand a chance.

I've posted before in detail about the Death of Republicanism in New England. There are lessons to be learned from that. This potential Republican Revival we are seeing now will only succeed if the voters of each state can use the party as a political vehicle, instead of having to join an inflexible ideology.

There has been a lot of criticism by GOP Uber-conservatives of Republican Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine. I visited with family in Maine last year. I read in the newspaper there, in a political article, a comment by a voter addressing that criticism, who said: "We sent Snowe and Collins to Washington to represent the State of Maine, not the GOP". I think that is very true of the voters in Maine; they tend to not be rigidly partisan, and like their politicians to reflect that.

I think it's largely true for New England as whole; they expect their senators to be loyal to their state first, their party second. They are expected to compromise when necessary, to please the voters of their state.

Brown of Massachusetts knows this. If he turns into a GOP Uber-conservative, he will be toast. He won by listening to his constituents, not the GOP ideologues.

Here in Oregon, we had a wonderful GOP senator, Gordon Smith. But then the GOP ideologues began to complain he was a RINO, and undermined him, just enough to help the Democrats defeat him. Now we have two Democrat senators, and some of the highest income taxes in the nation, second only to NYC. Way to go... NOT!!!

I already am hearing the GOP Uber-conservatives complaining that Brown is a RINO, not good enough, not pure enough. Are we as a party going to shoot ourselves in the foot AGAIN, ending the Republican revival before it's begun?

If Democrats and Republicans keep sticking to ideological extremes, then perhaps a third party will have a good chance of forming. One that could attract independents, and both Republican and Democrat moderates might actually succeed, especially if WE continue to flail and fail.
     

How many people are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal? Nearly 60% - the Majority?

How Many Libertarian Voters Are There?

In our new study, David Kirby and I round up various estimates on the number of libertarian-leaning voters. Our own calculation, 14 percent, is actually the lowest estimate.

We use three questions on political values from the generally acknowledged gold standard of public opinion data, the surveys of the American National Election Studies, and find that 14 percent of respondents gave libertarian answers to all three questions. But other researchers have used somewhat looser criteria and found larger numbers of libertarians: [...]

One can split hairs over the definition of "Libertarian", but most people seem to relate to the idea of fiscal conservatism combined with social liberalism, which goes against both the politically ideological Left and Right. In other words, most people are in the moderate, non-ideological center.

For too long this majority has been battered between two extremes. Both Left and Right has been pushing for bigger government to enforce their ideology. Now, it's time to do something about it.

     

Rick Warren: stuck in the middle - like most?

Warren: From Peacemaker to Lightning Rod

Unlike many evangelical leaders of recent decades, the Rev. Rick Warren doesn't want to be a lightning rod. When I asked him before the last election whether the Christian right had tarnished the image of American evangelicals, Warren didn't blink: "without a doubt."

"I never was a part of it," Warren said of the Christian right. "I'm trying to stake out what I call a common ground for the common good."

[...]

After Warren's recent CNN appearance, his critics on the right are as miffed about his warmth toward "all my gay friends" as they are about his specific misstatement on Proposition 8. "I hope he is not intimidated by the tactics of homosexual activists," says Concerned Women for America's Wright. "He has a unique ability to present biblical truth on marriage to a wider audience."

Gay rights groups, meanwhile, have also ratcheted up their criticism of Warren. "Rev. Warren is not a moderate pastor who is trying to bring all sides together," the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group, wrote in a letter to Obama protesting Warren's inauguration role. "Instead, Rev. Warren has often played the role of general in the cultural war waged against LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] Americans."

[...]

But Warren's defenders argue that his critics on the left and right give him credibility with the majority of middle-of-the-road Americans. [...]

It would seem that Warren wants to be a bridge builder, but the extremists on both the Left and the Right want none of that; they have no use for bridges, or people who would try to build them. I can only wonder if he is like the majority of Americans; stuck in the middle, willing to compromise on some things, but being battered by extremists on both sides.

We will never all agree, nor are we meant to; a healthy democratic-republic requires debate and strong political opposition, so it's not wrong or even bad that we have that. But we also need to find common ground sometimes, to keep the extremes on either side from pulling us too far in one direction.

One thing that has allowed the left to steadily gain ground in this tug of war is that they often grudgingly compromise; they take whatever they can get, even as they denounce that it isn't enough. They still TAKE it.

The Right too often draws a line in the sand, and says "ALL or NOTHING". And they often end up with nothing. Thus the Left steadily advances incrementally, and it's gotten them quite far. The Right could do the same, if they would only abandon the all-or-nothing strategy that has not been serving them well.

For years when I lived in San Francisco, I would hear hard-core Leftists say that the best way to defeat the Right in America was to encourage the Religious Right to make demands and to be as loud, vociferous and inflexible as possible. The idea was, that if you give the Religious Right enough rope to hang themselves, they will, AND they will take the Republican party with them.

I would not paint the entire Religious Right with that brush; there are several variations of the Religious Right theme. Yet it does seem that there is at least a segment of the Religious Right that is extra loud and inflexible. If they were to adopt a less strident and more flexible, incremental strategy towards getting what they want, we might all benefit more.

But I don't see that happening; you can't force people to change. That being the case, I don't see that it's wise to let them take the lead of the Republican Party. I don't say kick them out; we need a big tent, not a small one. I just mean, that whoever sits at the head of the table, whoever leads the party, ought to be flexible and moderate enough that a broad coalition can gather around them, and around the issues that most of us can agree on.

Flexibility is a survival asset. Inflexibility often equals death.

Rick Warren may not be someone you agree with. I may not agree with him either, on all issues. I'm just saying, he deserves a place at the table. Our tent needs to be big enough. We need to take what we can get. If growing, and even surviving, as a political force, means anything to us anymore.
     

Why Oregon Senator Gordon Smith has my vote

Reality. I like to think I'm in touch with reality. The reality here in Oregon is, that this is a blue state. A Republican cannot win here without support from Democrats. You have to represent your constituents, and if the majority of them are Democrats, you reach out to them. Senator Smith has done just that, and enjoys the support of many Oregonian Democrats:

Democrats for Smith



He is an Oregon native, and understands the concerns of his constituents and is responsive to them. Here is some information about the senator, from his website at www.gordonsmith.com:

About Gordon Smith

Gordon Smith has served his home state of Oregon in the United States Senate since 1997. He has earned a reputation for independence and effectiveness, working with both Republicans and Democrats to do what is right for Oregon.

Helping grow the Oregon economy is a top priority. As a member of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, Gordon is using his clout to cut taxes and help working families keep more of their hard-earned money.

When it comes to health care, he is a leading advocate for mental health programs, expanding access to children's health care and providing coverage for the uninsured while protecting Medicaid. The Oregonian called Gordon Smith the “leading Republican voice against dismantling the nation’s health-care safety net.”

Oregon's farmers, fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts have come to know Gordon Smith as a friend. While others are looking to shut down the forests or fence off our farmers, Gordon Smith is making public policy that does not leave Oregonians high and dry. Whether writing salvage logging legislation or preserving landmarks like Mt. Hood, he balances the use of natural resources to protect Oregon’s treasures and people's livelihoods.

From pre-school to college, Gordon is working to make sure Oregon's schools are strong. In the Senate, he fights budget cuts to Head Start programs for preschoolers and works to make student loans more accessible for college students. As the Chairman of the Senate Hunger Caucus, the Senator is working to alleviate hunger in Oregon and address the problem around the globe.

Gordon Smith is the preeminent Republican advocate in the U.S. Senate for bringing our troops home from Iraq and focusing their mission on fighting terrorists. The Register Guard said Smith has “the courage to back up criticism” and that he speaks “honestly” about Iraq.” The LaGrande Observer says he “spoke with conviction and sincerity” when calling for a change in tactics in Iraq.

Gordon Smith, known as a “Gordy” to his nine brothers and sisters, grew up in Pendleton and later in Bethesda, MD where his father Milan served in the Eisenhower Administration. Gordon played basketball and is an Eagle Scout. After serving on a church mission in New Zealand, he graduated from Brigham Young University and Southwestern University School of Law.

Prior to his election to the United States Senate in 1996, Smith operated his family's frozen food processing company in Pendleton. He first entered public service in 1992 serving in the Oregon Senate, where he became Senate President in 1995.

A native Oregonian, Gordon and his wife Sharon live in Pendleton where they raised three children - Brittany, Garrett, and Morgan.

The far right has been critical of the senator for calling for a "change of tactics" in Iraq, but clearly, that was needed. I haven't always agreed with the senator, but he has been firm in his convictions, many of which I do agree with. Not supporting him would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I am in complete agreement with Pat, who said the following on his blog:

Why I support Sen. Gordon Smith

"An 80% friend is not a 20% enemy." - Ronald Reagan.

[...]

Smith is the only Republican who holds a statewide office in Oregon. He's certainly not perfect and he's definitely not popular with conservatives but, like Mitt Romney in Massachussetts, he is operating in a state which is overwhelmingly Democratic and has had to adapt to his constituents. At first he supported the invasion of Iraq but has since changed his mind. I can agree to respectfully disagree with him about that and he is entitled to change his mind. I was dead against the war from the start but later came to support it.

But, compared with Merkley, who is currently Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, Smith is most decidedly the lesser of two evils - which is all I ever expect from politicians. [...]

Pat gives and extensive listing of the senator's accomplishments. Those on the far right who want to purge the party of people like senator Smith, would sacrifice the Republican party for ideological purity. They would keep our party small, and losing elections.

I will not support them in this. I will support the Republican party, and will gladly be voting for Senator Smith.


Related Links:

Democrats for Smith: In the News

United States Senator - Gordon Smith

GOP Sen. Gordon Smith's track record draws Oregon tribes' support
     

Is John McCain the ultimate centrist?

There are various groups, on both the left and right, that endorse senators based on their voting record in the Senate. But each group tends to only select the issues that are most important to that group, and use that as the ruler to measure the candidates worth to the group. That's fine. But what happens if the ENTIRE record is taken into consideration? From Fox News:

McCain in the Middle?

[...] There are a number of organizations on the left and right that evaluate congressmen and senators on how they vote each year. These conservative and liberal groups pick the votes that their fellow liberals or conservatives most care about and figure out what position best supports their own views.

Two well-known organizations that rank congressional voting are the American Conservative Union on the right and the Americans for Democratic Action on the left. There also is the League of Conservation Voters, which ranks politicians from a liberal environmentalist position.

These three rankings from 2001 to 2006 paint a fairly similar picture, putting McCain to the left of most Republicans and to the right of most Democrats in the Senate, though usually much closer to the average Republican. [...]

You can read the rest of the article for a further detailed breakdown. I realise he isn't the ideal of what many conservative Republicans want. I also disagree with him on several issues; he was not my first choice. But the more I consider the larger picture, the more it seems like he might be the IDEAL choice for THIS election.

I normally prefer Governors over Senators for presidential candidates, but they are all Senators this time. None of them are perfect. But both the Democrat candidates have way too many negatives for me. John McCain has a long history in the Senate, a very good record on many conservative issues, and fortunately he's extremely well-connected politically, and has a broad appeal to moderates in both parties.

Neal Boortz believes the winner of the Clinton/Obama debate last night was... John McCain:

NOT TOO EARLY FOR A PREDICTION ...

He gives some excellent reasons why, and I agree. McCain has so much going for him in comparison to the competition. On a good day, when I'm feeling optimistic, I think it very likely that John McCain will win. It's not a certainty, but he has a lot of things going for him that no other Republican candidate would have. He enjoys a broad appeal among moderates and independents, and I think they may well decide this election. I'm going to do my part in the coming months, not only to hold on to my optimism, but expand and share it too.