The one thing the left puts above their worship of Obama

Posted by: ST on May 14, 2009 at 10:11 am

Bush hatred.

Check out the headlines at Memeorandum this morning:

The Memeorandum link itself contains links to the liberal bloggers who are having a fit about Obama’s recent detainee positions.

President Obama threw the left a few bones with his supposedly “outlawing torture,” the symbolic gesture on the term “enemy combatants,” and with the release of the so-called “torture memos” but on the release of prisoner abuse photos and terrorist detentions, he’s done a 180 – and the revenge-minded left is seething, because they wanted him to fully repudiate the “lawless” Bush years by reversing Bush’s global war on terror policies, wanted him to air the US’ “dirty laundry” via the release of information and photos that would both seriously hamper the CIA’s interrogation efforts and put our troops lives at risk even more so than they already were/are – not to mention be a major setback to the counterterrorism gains made under the Bush administration. They’ve only gotten a little slice of that so far, and it doesn’t look like they’re going to get much more. Oh, and the investigations and perp walks they want to see from Bush/Cheney/Yoo, etc? Not very likely.

So while Obama is winning praise from us warmongers on the right, he’s feeling some major heat from the anti-war Bush-hating left for essentially continuing on with Business As Usual as it relates to key foreign policy positions they wanted to see exposed and reversed – and prosecuted. Reality is slowly but surely trumping liberal idealism on the foreign policy front, and Obama is finding out this week that the Presidency can indeed be a dirty, lonely, thankless job.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

8 Responses to “The one thing the left puts above their worship of Obama”

Comments

  1. It’s like Jim Geraghty said, “all Obama promises come with expiration dates.” And that includes those made to the moonbat Left to get elected. They should have realized this: Obama wants to meet their agenda domestically, turning the US into a social democratic/corporatist state. He can’t afford a terrorist attack on the US, because he would take the blame and that would possibly derail his agenda. So, he continues Dubya’s policies largely intact.

    The moonbats fooled themselves on this one — as on everything else. [-(

  2. megapotamus says:

    The not-so-sad fact is that the policies the Lefties have been ignorantly screaming about for years; wbing, non-POW status, non-criminal status, indefinite detentions… these were not mere demonstrations of Dick Cheney’s depravity. Now the most Leftwing politician in American history has gone into office and found out, SURPRISE!, these are actually necessary arms of national security in these crazy days of GWOT and her ugly sisters. The NERF approach to our adversaries was tested at the ballot box and won among the ingorant and easily led. Tested in office by that harsh mistress known as Reality… EVEN THE REALITY OF BARACK OBAMA… it should be said, these prove to be necessities. Do you really think Barack would be doing this if he hadn’t discovered through hard experience that these practices do not present a “false choice” as he so moronically declared during the election? In fact it was a difficult choice but one made for the sake of our national security and now Barack endorses ALL of that. Hilarious!

  3. Carlos says:

    By the time Obama’s four years are up he’ll either have the left eating out of his blood-stained, power-greedy grubby little hand again, or he’ll be as hated by them as Bush. Personally I hope they hate him, but that in itself presents a dilemma in that by that time his equally power-hungry minions in Congress (the Pelosi-Reid tribe) will be less than willing to give up the power they have grabbed, stolen, bought and/or lied for, and that presents a real Constitutional crisis for them, him, and us.

  4. CD Walker says:

    Anthony- just to let you know, you can’t be a corporate state and a socialist state at the same time. Corporate state is like fascism, government is owned by business with laws geared in favor of business over the liberty of the individual, while socialist state is geared more to be run for the benefit of the most amount of people, so they contradict themselves. Republicans have to have a unified view to present to the nation if we hope to win in 2012.
    The definition of “Republican form of Government” is to value the liberty, freedom, and rights of the individual citizen over any other entity, and that the citizens hold the ultimate power in government, not any other entity. We elect our officials to make sure we don’t fall pray to Dictators, Religious Zealots, Business Puppets, and defunct Royalty.

  5. Carlos says:

    CD, by “religious zealots” do you mean the envirowhackos, or do you mean mainstream conservative evangelicals who, in the last 233 years, could have established a religious state many times but refused to because they thought more of the Constitution and what it actually says than do liberals?

    Just asking for clarification because that’s a red herring that’s really, really tiresome.

  6. You’d think the liberal Democrats would be happy. Guess they have to have 100% power – or nothing. Kind of like the time when I was a two-year-old. I get it.

  7. Great White Rat says:

    Corporate state is like fascism, government is owned by business

    CD, you have that exactly backwards. I doubt that any word is tossed around more by people who have no clue what it means than “fascism”. Are you seriously trying to claim that 1930’s German and Italian industrialists pulled Hitler’s and Mussolini’s strings? No, it’s the other way around. Private companies were allowed to exist – as long as they did what the Party dictated. Having the government dictate to, say, an automobile company is a lot closer to classical fascism than your definition.

    socialist state is geared more to be run for the benefit of the most amount of people

    So, by your definition, places like North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela should be the world’s most prosperous nations. Illegal immigrants should be crawling over each other trying to sneak into Havana, not California. And the old Soviet Union should never have collapsed – in fact, it should be a beacon of prosperity and liberty.

    Socialism does NOT work for the benefit of the most people. Hell, the Pilgrims tried socialism when they first came to America, and abandoned it in short order. Socialism never makes everyone’s life better – the only way it can make people “equal” is by dragging everyone down.

    You want a state that’s geared more to be run for the benefit of the most people? Try one based on capitalism and political freedom, both of which are incompatible with socialism.

  8. Thanks for the correction, CD, but it’s … incorrect. :">

    Corporatism has a long history, dating back to the 19th century. It’s not business owning the government. One of its major roots can be found in De Rerum Novarum, issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891. Steven Malanga has written an excellent article on Obama’s Corporatism for City Journal. I also highly recommend Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. Progressivism, corporatism, fascism, socialism – these are all related phenomena of the Left that subordinate the individual to the State, and all are antithetical to liberal democracy.