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?
