Send in the Greyhound fleet! NY Times Now UNDER THE BUS!!!
Posted: July 3, 2008 Filed under: No Obama | Tags: Bush's Third Term, New York Times Under the Bus, No Obama, Obama flip flops, Obama lies, Obama to the right, Wall Street Journal, Wall Street Journal Editorial 5 CommentsEXTRA! WALL STREET JOURNAL SAYS:
Bush’s Third Term
July 2, 2008; Page A12
“We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of “George Bush’s third term.” Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it.
Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn’t merely “running to the center.” He’s fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he’s embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush’s policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?
![]() |
| Getty Images |
Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.
Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the legislation isn’t an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the Constitution. Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he’ll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he’s happy to throw the New York Times under the bus.
Next up for Mr. Obama’s political blessing will be Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org’s attacks in 2007 that he was “General Betray Us.” Perhaps he had a late epiphany.
Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright “was not the person that I met 20 years ago.” The Senator will learn – as John McCain has been saying – that withdrawal would squander the gains from the surge, set back Iraqi political progress, and weaken America’s strategic position against Iran. Our guess is that he’ll spin this switcheroo as some kind of conditional commitment, saying he’ll stay in Iraq as long as Iraqis are making progress on political reconciliation, and so on. As things improve in Iraq, this would be Mr. Bush’s policy too.
Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leaps toward Mr. Bush on domestic issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta, the Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for “everybody.” His economic aide, Austan Goolsbee, has been liberated from the five-month purdah he endured for telling Canadians that Mr. Obama’s protectionism was merely campaign rhetoric. Now that Mr. Obama is in a general election, he can’t scare the business community too much.
Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority’s ruling to ban the death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats – at least until November.
This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities. Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” is not the assault on church-state separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed. And yesterday, Mr. Obama’s campaign unveiled an ad asserting his support for welfare reform that “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” Never mind that Mr. Obama has declared multiple times that he opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform.
* * *
All of which prompts a couple of thoughts. The first is that Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to think American political sentiment has moved as far left as most of the media claim. Another is that the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to embrace much of Mr. Bush’s foreign and antiterror policy whether he admits it or not. Think Eisenhower endorsing Truman’s Cold War architecture.
Most important is the matter of Mr. Obama’s political character – and how honest he is being about what he truly believes. His voting record in the Senate and in Illinois, as well as his primary positions, would make him the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972. But he clearly doesn’t want voters to believe that in November. He’s still the Obama Americans don’t know.”
It’s getting surreal out there folks!!! Let’s just disinter Salvador Dali and let him explain it to us!!!
Source: source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495450490321133.html


![[Bush's Third Term]](https://i0.wp.com/s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-BT254_oj_thi_20080701175511.jpg)




So, where the hell were was the Times 3 months ago? Oh yeah…high on the kool-aid. Ooops!
Where has the media been for the past 16 years? Coyly pretending to be liberal while skewering every top name Democrat that came along.
Until the Obama. Then suddenly media just loves them some Democrat. That alone should make the hair on the back of every liberals neck rise.
With few exceptions MSM rains on Democratic Parades and shines on Republican Parties and Picnics.
Now most of them are drooling over Obama. That tells me exactly what he is. But then I’ve know for months.
And the lofty NY Times suddenly discovers he’s not all that liberal?
Wow, too bad the times didn’t have the resources of one retired old lady living on Social Security in the small town of Kenosha, WI. What a bunch of buffoons, hacks and poser our media is.
Apologies to Paul Krugman and Gene Lyons, two lions among the mousely media.
kenoshaMarge, maybe there is a genetic component in b.s. detection. My parents were born in Barron, WI and I lived there until I was 10. I think our families were too busy with both feet on the ground, taking care of themselves, to have a head-in-the-clouds mentality about anything.
Our conservative paper (Dallas Morning News) was in the tank for Obama the entire time Hillary was still in. Now, not so much. They still have positive articles and positive letters-to-editor, but they do jab him every once in awhile, which didn’t happen in the primaries. (Hillary hatred – one of the editors even called her a b. . . . in their blog.)
They haven’t endorsed a Democrat for president in over 60 years. If they endorse Obama over McCain I will actively work for McCain and will send him my first check. They won’t be endorsing because he’s a liberal.
Miss Marple,
Another Cheesehead! Hello.
Glad to find a near neighbor that I agree with so often. I frequently steal you line about channeling your “Granny whup ass”.
And I completely agree about the feet on the ground bit. When you have to work for a living it’s real hard to walk around with your head in the clouds lest you fall on your ass.