Wake Up, Mr. Gerson


So, in today’s Washington Post, Michael Gerson helpfully points out that President Obama “[a]gainst all my expectations” has eschewed the hope and change and “post-partisanship” of his campaign in favor of a liberal agenda and divisive old style politics. Well, pass the smelling salts, because who ever saw that coming?! I guess not Mr. Gerson.

Just what, pray tell, did he actually expect? Seriously, I would like to know, because after watching Gerson personally work to shred every ounce of basic limited government conservatism from the Bush administration for 6 odd years, I just want to know what brand of “post-partisanship” Gerson “expected.” I honestly don’t know why he even feigns conservatism anymore. I mean, look at this column. Tell me these are the words of a conservative:

“I saw a candidate who…defended idealism and rhetoric against the supremely cynical Clinton machine, who brought a religious sensibility to matters of social justice…”

What about that sounds conservative? “Social justice”? Aren’t we all in on the code words by now? That’s just code for redistribution of wealth. Does Gerson think that just because Obama brings a “religious sensibility” to it that his policies towards those ends are going to be something other than tired, old, liberal, big government nonsense?

I mean, I am a big believer in striving for the ideal. I too, am an evangelical Christian and believe in helping those less fortunate and fighting for those who cannot help themselves. But besides my fundamental disagreement with him about the role of government in that endeavor, this language is the language that Gerson absolutely saturated Bush’s speeches with during his Presidency. And most people agree that one of President Bush’s greatest weaknesses was an inability to communicate.

It’s hard to communicate when you are spewing out rhetoric that comes from the musings of someone whose basic view of government is – however well intended – at odds with core conservative principles.

Gerson then goes on to express dismay at Obama’s “simplistic” approach to the ethical debate surrounding his lifting of essentially all restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Who would have ever guessed that Mr. “Above my paygrade” and Mr. “Let a baby die in a closet” would take a simplistic (some might even say flippant) view towards the protection of human life? No sir… didn’t see THAT one coming…

Gerson goes on in the column to suggest that the great “tragedy” of Obama’s liberal, partisan hackery is that we won’t all focus on the elements of Obama’s agenda deserving of praise and support. He then fires off a laundry list of liberal priorities like the Second Chance Act, increased funding for AIDS treatment and “lifesaving commitments promoting global health and development.” Really? That is the great tragedy?!? That we’re not all cheerleading a big-spending, liberal wish list of social programs? Because, honestly, I think the real tragedy might be something more like government undermining our entire capitalistic system, the mind-blowing expansion of the welfare state as the Ponzi scheme that is medicare and social security goes further ignored, or maybe even global economic collapse.

Jesus commanded us to “love our neighbor.” That we should most certainly do. Jesus did NOT command us to massively expand government in the name of “social justice” and other “heroic” or “compassionate” aims…

Unfortunately, Gerson continues to promote this misguided thought. While he and his columnist buddies like Brooks and Frum were/are busy swooning at Obama’s eloquent speeches and idealistic rhetoric, they totally failed to consider his actual record: the fact that his entire upbringing, education and career (such as it was), not to mention his associations with the likes of Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, give no indication that Obama has a moderate or “post-partisan” bone in his body. The man was and is a partisan. He was and is a baby killer. He was and is a big-spending liberal who believes in the redistribution of wealth. He was and is a believer in judicial activism.

Let us pray it only lasts four years, because it’s already going to take decades to rectify.

Wake up Mr. Gerson. Wake up Mr. Brooks. Wake up Mr. Frum. None of this is surprising. Not in the least.

Category: , , , , ,

RSS feed | Trackback URI

7 Comments Leave a comment

Here we go again.......

kfpickett Friday, March 13th at 6:17PM EDT (link)

Your excellent column about Michael Gerson’s surprise at how Obama is acting and his dismay at Obama’s approach to certain issues makes me want to go back to the material I posted at RedState.com last month. I am beginning to feel I need to recycle this post periodically as a “primer” to the folks who are experiencing “buyer’s remorse” for supporting Obama in the Presidential election. Here are the comments, which are becoming even more relevant as the days and weeks go by:

LACK OF PRINCIPLED LEADERSHIP

The President’s despicable behavior during his rush to get the “porkulus” bill passed was a true indicator of his LACK OF PRINCIPLED LEADERSHIP. If he really believed what he continually reminded us during the campaign, then he would have reined in the House and Senate Democrats — on behalf of the American people — because this was not the time for them to act as drunken-sailor partisans. It brings to mind once again his eight-year track record in the Illinois Senate.

Below is a blog I posted in February that reminds readers of what Obama was like while serving in Springfield, Illinois. His actions as President, though terribly disappointing, are not a bit surprising when you look at his record, which continues to be ignored by the mainstream media. Obama knows neither “fiscal responsibility” nor “principled leadership”:

IF ONLY THE NEWS MEDIA HAD COME TO ILLINOIS……….

“Barack Obama’s early ineptitude and arrogant attitude — otherwise known as ‘Amateur Hour at 1600 Pennyslvania Avenue’ — were so predictable if only the mainstream media had taken the initiative to dig just a little and to ask questions like a high school journalism student could have done.

“Two of my Republican friends, highly respected by colleagues of both parties, have served in the Illinois Senate for well more than 10 and 20 years, respectively. Obviously, they were there for Obama’s eight years — 1997 to 2004 — in the Senate. I asked them, ‘What was he like for those eight years?’

“Here is how they described Obama: 1) intelligent, 2) knack for giving speeches with flowery, even soaring, rhetoric but little real substance, 3) DIDN’T REALLY DO ANYTHING except make it clear that he had a desire to run for higher office beyond Illinois, 4) arrogant, 5) aloof, 6) was NOT a leader in the Senate, 7) was not even a leader in his OWN party in the Senate, 8)protected at every turn by Chicago Democratic Senate boss Emil Jones, 9) rarely worked across the aisle except when he actually had to during the time the Republicans controlled the Senate, 10) projected the image that he thought he was just a little smarter or a little better than the others, 11) very smooth, so much so that he could skate around and in-between the Chicago corruption to which he had many close ties, but nothing critical ever stuck.

“When asked, ‘What do you fear about him?’, the Senators’ answers consisted of two main concerns: 1) underneath the camouflage of the ultra-liberal voting record that he compiled in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate is the heartbeat of a ‘Socialist,’ especially with respect to our country’s domestic policies, and 2) his disdain for the U.S. military, which will be reflected in how he approaches the ‘war on terror,’ along with his attitude that he can negotiate with rogue leaders and convince the enemy to back off because of his ’superior’ intelligence and ‘powers of persuasion.’

“The Senators were asked these questions in the summer of 2008, prior to the Presidential campaign heating up. From what we now see in the White House, wouldn’t you agree that Obama’s current behavior was ‘predictable’? If only the news media had come to Illinois………..

“Remember, a leopard never changes its spots, not even one from Kenya.”

You're preaching to the choir here, kfpickett.

janis Friday, March 13th at 6:24PM EDT (link)

But your points are valuable nevertheless and bear repetition. That “disdain for the military” attitude is no surprise at all, particularly with what he is attempting to do to their continuing health care coverage if they are disabled in any way while in the service. What a contemptible little man it is.

 
 

Obama's shuck and jive was bought by a lot

Tbone Friday, March 13th at 8:15PM EDT (link)

fools like Gerson.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

 

Here We Go Again, Part II

IJB Friday, March 13th at 8:18PM EDT (link)

The more important point is that we have YA RedState front page diary once again wasting time on YA phony “Republican”.

Rather than arguing about whether Steele being a good choice or not for the GOP, it is *these* kinds of diaries that are wasting our time.

We are once again playing the Dems game of shadowboxing phantom media “Republicans”, rather than focusing all of our fire on Obama, Pelosi & Reid’s outrageously radical and destructive agenda(s) and holding GOP office holders accountable.

We seriously need a moratorium on diaries like this going after these phony media “Republicans”. It is a waste of both time and effort.

thanks, but no thanks...

hogan Friday, March 13th at 11:36PM EDT (link)

to “save” time…

1. Michael Steele was not and still is not a good choice for the GOP;
2. I - and others - have written about the absurdity of our Republican “leadership” and the need to hold them accountable;
3. Gerson, Frum, Brooks - and to a lesser and different degree, Douthat and others - will continue to merit responses and rebuking, because far too many Republicans from top-down and bottom-up are buying what they are selling; and
4. Conservatives need to look forward and define themselves rather than arguing, but until there is a common thread holding us together (which I have suggested and argued for more than once), the conservative movement will remain fragmented and ineffective.

I believe - as I have stated before - that, unlike Gerson (oh, NO, I mentioned him again… CENSOR), we must re-focus the party on its limited government / fiscal responsibility / constitutional / federalist / Divinely inspired roots… re-branded, re-organized and re-marketed as appropriate. Gerson believes (as do a number of others of this ilk) that this is a dated “Goldwater/Reagan” worldview that is not appropriate in 21st Century America.

I disagree and will continue to comment on that, as well.

 
 

Is it the beginning of the end

billcabot Saturday, March 14th at 7:30AM EDT (link)

Is this the beginning or end of the Obama regime or the USA?

When New York City hired David Dinkens through affrimative action principles it soon learned he was not up for the job. Having no credentials except one, his policies and appointments created a cancer (or some would say made a tumor brought on by Ed Koch malignant) that eroded the city’s fabric. As New York was ready to hit bottom, the braindead people of New York City somehow figured out that radical surgery and chemo was appropriate and then hired Rudy Guilianni before it was too late. The recovery and rejuvenation of the city is a fact that our media friends will ignore but cannot deny.

The Dinkens II administration got into power in Washington the same way Dinkens I did and is repeating the New York City failures of governance of the original thereby ensuring the cancer spreads across our formerly great nation. At this juncture it appears the majority of Americans are more braindead than New Yorkers and there is no Rudy oncologist to look to for treatment.

Unfortunately there is no way out.

davo119 Saturday, March 14th at 7:51AM EDT (link)

The only corrective action is impeachment and even if that were remotely possible look at the line of succession . OMG WASS.

Never give in! Never! Never! Never!

 
 

Leave a Comment

 

Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity.