Conor Rogers, Editor
Ideology: Republican | Writing from: Washington, DC
In the State of the Union address, the President called for cutting taxes, eliminating the capital gains tax, expanding the War in Afghanistan, the importance of fighting Terror, securing our borders, opening up our shores for drilling & exploration and among other things, giving tax breaks to companies that create jobs.
This platform, laid out by President George Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address was pretty much unremarkable – until now.
Democrats who sat in their seats in 2003 as the Republican President championed tax cuts, off-shore drilling and scaling up the War on Terror leapt to their feet tonight as President Obama suddenly tacked to the center and even center-right on everything from tax policy to energy production.
Likely, because their re-election chances for 2010 just improved a few percentage points.
Watered down healthcare is now acceptable. The public option didn’t even make an appearance; 
Obama created new market-based solutions to create jobs and shrugged off his ‘socialist’ label.
His shift to the center is remarkable – but should be praised. Yes, it’s quite obviously political posturing, but if that’s what it takes to get the President to realize cutting taxes, not spending $200,000 a year to create a $60,000 a year job, is what will both create jobs and bring overseas jobs back home, so be it.
Obama made the choice to move to the center – even though in the past few days as he called in his 2008 campaign team, still pushed for healthcare and a bank tax. The past week gave no evidence the President had gotten the ‘Massachusetts message.’ But tonight’s State of the Union made it undeniably clear the President heard Scott Brown loud and clear – to the point that he even absorbed some of Brown’s Republican ideas and talking points.
President Obama did stick to a few of his liberal guns, such as lobbyist reforms, some form of healthcare reform and new taxes on Wall Street banks (and unveiled a new Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy) but the most notable moments of the speech were undoubtedly his sudden shift on taxes and energy.
To Republicans who feel that some of platform was quite literally stolen (McCain proposed nearly half of Obama’s ‘new’ ideas in the 2008 campaign,) I point out that it’s better to have economic solutions that will work than an economic policy that drives the voters to the GOP, but does irreparable economic harm in the process.
All in all, the mood in Washington seems to be less tense. Finally, some bipartisanship, across the aisle solutions and the actual moderate solutions he promised during the campaign.
I’d thank the President for his wisdom and sudden move to the center, but we truthfully owe all credit to the upstart Republican from Massachusetts.
Conor,
You argue in the beginning of your article that President Barack Obama last night essentially co-opted the “platform” of George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address. I would remind you that the primary “platform” of Bush’s 2003 speech was not tax cuts, border security, or offshore drilling. It was a misleading case for war with Iraq, a country that posed no threat to the United States and had no nuclear weapons — despite President Bush’s fantastical assertion, in that same speech, that “Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Even if we ignore this glaring difference between the two speeches, you are still incorrect to write that Obama’s support for bipartisan policies is “political posturing.” As much as you might like to believe otherwise, Republicans do not have a monopoly on, as you write, “fighting Terror,” “securing our borders,” and “giving tax breaks to companies that create jobs.” You imply here that these concerns belong exclusively to Republicans, which is simply not true. I would ask you to find a single Democrat who is against fighting terrorists, securing our borders, and providing help to American small businesses.
You include Obama’s support for widespread tax cuts — many of which have already taken effect — in your list of policies the president has supposedly adopted as part of a politically convenient “shift to the center.” But Obama supported tax cuts for the entirety of the presidential race in 2008. Middle class tax cuts were, in fact, a centerpiece of his campaign. Last night, Obama pointed out that his tax cuts have provided relief to 95% of working Americans, in addition to small businesses, first-time home buyers, and the eight million Americans who currently pay for college.
Finally, I would add that it is difficult to accuse the president of political expediency, especially since he has taken on, by his own admission, an array of politically radioactive issues — from health care reform to ending the archaic and bigoted Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy (a law for which John McCain announced his full-fledged support last night).
You seem determined, essentially, to cast each of the president’s actions in a disingenuous light. You misconstrue bipartisanship as political expedience and a willingness to compromise as dishonest pivoting.
– Peter Fulham
Single democrat who is against fighting terrorists, securing our borders, and providing help to ALL businesses, big and small so that they can create jobs – Joe Biden (for all of his career, I might add)
95% of working Americans don’t create jobs for other people. Giving people money so that they can consume is not economic growth.
If “middle class” means $250,000 in income, then I guess you’re onto something. I might also add that figure includes some of the richest Americans.
This President, bipartisan? I think not.
Fulham –
Bush’s speech did mention terrorism, taxes and energy as Mr. Rogers said. Obviously the focus was on War, but that was not the sole topic.
How can you say this isn’t pivoting? The President opposed drilling when the Republicans tried to add it to the energy bill. He opposed small business tax cuts when the GOP tried to add it to the stimulus bill. He opposed eliminating capital gains taxes for small businesses when the GOP tried to add it into the recovery act. He now supports all these things 6 months later as his poll numbers drop to the 40s and Republicans go 3-for-3 on elections.
Rogers mentioned in a full paragraph that Obama did manage to hold on to some of his liberalism despite his shift on the other issues, so your last paragraphs are somewhat void.
“Suzy Q”:
You could make an argument that President Obama changed his position on offshore drilling, but it wasn’t during his presidency. It was during his campaign in 2008.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/business/energy-environment/18offshore.html)
You can draw your own conclusions about the sincerity of this shift, but it certainly was not in response to a Republican winning the Massachusetts Senate seat.
Your claim that Obama “opposed small business tax cuts when the GOP tried to add it to the stimulus bill” is simply not true.
The stimulus bill that Obama signed last year included tax cuts and incentives for small businesses, as did his proposed fiscal year 2010 budget.
(http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Web/SmallBusinessTaxBreaksinStimulusBill)
Mr Fulham: From yours: “I would ask you to find a single Democrat who is against fighting terrorists, securing our borders,” etc.
Atty Gen. Eric Holder, for one, who Mirandized the panty-bomber, and moved the KSM trial to New York. He turns a war into a pursuit of criminals, and grants US citizen status to an enemy foreign national!
But he should have been fired when he let the Black Panthers off in Philadelphia, but that was now so many, many months ago…
Wow, O&D. That’s the first post of yours I’ve actually agreed with. I guess a broken clock is right twice a day.
I’ll bring you around, Tim. Next it’s gonna be Noah, and when we get Colin McDonald back, I”ll bring him around, too. Dylan and Fulham, they’re beyond help. They are preparing for a life of criminality disguised as politics(What’s mine is mine; what’s his is also mine).
Strange times make strange bedfellows.
Don’t touch me there.
BTW I think that’s the second time someone has “broken-clocked” me.
Little did you know when you posted this that my return was imminent. I’d meet you halfway. I disagree with the trial being in New York for logistical reasons and I think it’s wrong for the Department of Justice to do things for the sake of poetic justice.
However, I cannot agree with the idea of trying KSM as a war criminal. While perhaps there is a case to be made for changing the laws of war to better reflect the new nature of terrorism, the laws that existed on September 11 are the laws that apply and no new law can be passed to apply to this guy. The entirety of the crime itself, which does not include planning, occurred inside the borders of the United States and were committed by a person not acting on the orders of any sovereign entity. Our laws require that he be treated as a civilian. Much like Timothy McVeigh, he is pretty much inevitably going to wind up with a needle in his arm. But it is not a sign of weakness to try him this way, in fact it is a show of strength and, hey, it even has a bit of poetry. This man wanted to destroy our institutions and way of life which include our justice system, yet once thwarted, we force him to be put through that system and see that it is still very much alive and well. We were not forced to suspend our laws and reduce ourselves to brutish dogs. The United States is as strong as ever, and here’s proof.
Conor,
I agree that this is an interesting shift to the center. I am frankly rather happy to see it. Hopefully, it is also a shift toward more realism. A thousand small changes will improve our way of life way better than failed attempts to make huge change. I also agree the government needs to scale back what it is involved in. However, I don’t know how much I attribute to Scott Brown. The President has long known that he was elected for being the anti-Bush at a time when we wanted whoever was the most unlike Bush we could find. There was not some monumental and sudden shift of a quarter of the country from right to left between 2004 and 2008. Now, with many sitting Democrats scared for their seats in 2010, they are going to be more cautious in what leftist things they support. They’ve known this since last year. Brown is a symptom of the phenomenon, but he is not the cause.
Lots of civilians have been tried and executed for violating the international laws of war. It seems to me that what you need is a factual reading of the precedent in this case, and you’ll come to my side that KSM is a war criminal and should be tried as such.
If you’d like some case references, feel free to email me. We can go back to WW II if you like, or earlier than that if you feel it necessary. No matter how you characterize the precedents, though, KSM is a war criminal and should be tried as one. It doesn’t require John Yoo type “reading into” them. It’s straight-up black letter law if you read the cases.
I’d also add that the McVeigh argument is invalid as well because he was an American citizen who performed his crimes on American soil. KSM is neither of those and thus your argument fails.
Colin: From yours: “he is pretty much inevitably going to wind up with a needle in his arm.” I remember this idea coming up at the time this dreadful trial was announced as being moved to New York, to address the initial chorus of objections. Something from Holder on the order of “He’s gonna be convicted, so why the fretting?” That was offensive to those of us who believe in a non-prejudicial justice system. He’s gonna be convicted? Says who?! In a country where we all lived through the O.J. trial? Her blood was in his car, but it’s the cops fault?! Just as then it was supposed to be seen as Mark Fuhrman’s fault, on this one it will be all George Bush’s fault. And the Obama admin will love it!
I agree with you about a non-prejudicial system, but I’m not the Attorney General, a federal judge, or particularly likely to be empaneled on the jury for this case; so I’m allowed to be convinced of his guilt and confident in the prosecution’s case. Nothing says the public has to be impartial. Do you think he’s not guilty?
I lack confidence in the judicial system to be “up to” trying him fairly: I also fear that he’ll be mistrialed because of the prejudicial statements already in print and on tape. I believe they want to spring him, because I believe the Pres and the Atty Gen are sympathetic with the enemy. Shouldn’t I believe that?