Is Obama ‘betraying’ the left?
David Sanger of the NYT raises an interesting point:
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s decisions this week to retain important elements of the Bush-era system for trying terrorism suspects and to block the release of pictures showing abuse of American-held prisoners abroad are the most graphic examples yet of how he has backtracked, in substantial if often nuanced ways, from the approach to national security that he preached as a candidate, and even from his first days in the Oval Office….
The issues of prisoner abuse and military commissions are hardly the only areas where clean breaks with the past have proven more problematic than expected. In ordering a buildup of troops in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama has taken steps Mr. Bush hesitated to take, partly out of denial that a war America had been winning in 2002 had turned so bad.
In authorizing continued covert action in Pakistan and agreeing to a slower pace of withdrawal from Iraq than he talked about during the campaign, he has raised the question of whether new facts, more hawkish advisers or the drumbeat of daily threat assessments have subtly changed his willingness to throw the gearboxes in reverse. On both the left and the right, there is speculation about whether the influence of Mr. Gates, or of his national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, or of Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, had forced him to revise his view…..
Pete Wehner, a member of Karl Rove’s staff in the Bush White House, who applauded several of Mr. Obama’s decisions this week, argued in an interview that “this is about more than simply discovering, once you are president, that the world is a complicated place.”
“It’s a reminder of how quickly we lose the real nuances of governing when you are campaigning,” Mr. Wehner said. “For many on the left who supported him, this is just this side of a betrayal, but for those who argue that he is a pragmatist, national security is the arena where they can most effectively make that case.”
Personally, I think it’s overblown at this point. In Pakistan, Obama is doing what he said in the campaign he would do, but many on the right just didn’t believe him. In Iraq, he’s reducing the force in consultation with the generals, as he said he would. The timeline has been stretched out by a few months, but that’s it. On the military commissions, he’s doing the only sensible thing. His options are to release everyone at Gitmo, keep everyone at Gitmo, or create some credible, legitimate process for separating the ones he has to keep from the ones he could release. He’s taking the third option.
Obama always struck me as a pragmatist, not the leftist ideologue that many on the right tried to pretend he was. So it’s no surprise to me that he’s acting pragmatically. We’ll see what the future holds, but so far so good.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
131 comments Add your comment
I Report :-) / You Whine :-(
May 16th, 2009
9:41 am
Look at the libs, they are worried that Obozo will betray them, but show no concerns about him committing treason against the country.
They do have their priorities, after all.
@@
May 16th, 2009
9:51 am
Obama always reminded me of a community activist, jay. He’s made the critical/self-serving decision to leave the radical leftists without a home but only after they mortgaged their future on his campaign.
His domestic policies do not impress.
I remain wary. He owes them big time.
Redneck Convert
May 16th, 2009
10:03 am
Well, things are looking up a bit. This Obama might could be more of a Conservative than people figured. If he would just get rid of this idea of guvmint health care for Those People and a few other Commie things, we might not have to leave the country and form our own after all.
It’s even looking like we might not have to line up all the people in Gitmo and shoot them. These military commissions might do the work for us. That way it would be all lawful like and nobody would get arrested for lynching.
Just the same I’m keeping my antitank weapon and the two machine guns that I use for hunting and self defense ready for use in case this Obama changes his mind again and turns these Terrists loose in America. I know the first thing they’d head for if they got here is the missus, and I aim to protect me and mine.
Have a good Saturday everybody and don’t forget to stock up on booze so you won’t be violating my Christian Sabbath. It’s OK to drink it on Sunday till your fingers are getting stepped on while you’re crawling, but it’s for sure a Sin to buy it on Sunday. Besides, I don’t want to be delivering the stuff on the weekend.
Mike
May 16th, 2009
10:05 am
” In Iraq, he’s reducing the force in consultation with the generals, as he said he would.”
This is no different than Bush. His intention was also to reduce troops as the conditions on the ground warranted.
“His options are to release everyone at Gitmo, keep everyone at Gitmo, or create some credible, legitimate process for separating the ones he has to keep from the ones he could release. He’s taking the third option”
Again, this is no different than Bush, who also sought to release Gitmo inmates that could be released. The challenge is many cases is finding a place for them to go. As Democrats are now discovering, this is no simple matter:
“Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed doubts about releasing Guantanamo detainees or putting them on trial on U.S. soil”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051404098.html
Mike
May 16th, 2009
10:09 am
Jay –
You have done a good job of getting rid of many of the bigots who frequented your blog. You should also consider adding Redneck Convert, as his mocking of people solely for their religious beliefs falls squarely in the bigotry category. It’s fine that he hates people who don’t share his spiritual views, but does your blog have to provide him with a platform for his bigoted and hateful rhetoric?
booger
May 16th, 2009
10:13 am
Obama is not a pragmatist, he is an opportunist. A pragmatist would never use a recession as an excuse to introduce every liberal program on his wish list while bankrupting the country. This was an opportunity to buy and secure votes. A pragmisist would have let the auto makers go bankrupt before dumping billions into their bank accounts and taking control of their operations via a task force. This was an opportunity to take over a key industry and force them to do what he wished. And a pragmatist would never ever raise taxes on businesses in the middle of a recession. This however was not opportunistic, it was insanity.
norman ravitch
May 16th, 2009
10:15 am
The Left will betray national security just as the Right has betrayed our economic security. We are in a mess.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 16th, 2009
10:18 am
Oh, and Jay, to answer the headline’s question: No.
Obama is the centrist Democrat we elected. Anyone who expected him to magically morph into a provider of single-payer health insurance, mass transit for all, a return to Eisenhower-era tax rates on the wealthiest, and a complete withdrawal of all overseas troops inside of six months simply wasn’t paying attention.
ty webb
May 16th, 2009
10:21 am
So much for the “Change”. Is the “Hope” still intact?
mike
May 16th, 2009
10:35 am
DB -
LOL. Sorry to inspire such rage in you. Of course Redneck Convert is “beloved” by folks like yourself. He hates Christians because they are Christians and goes out of his way to demonstrate that on a regular basis. Bigotry is bigotry,even if that bigotry is directed at people who you also are prejudiced against.
Sorry if you don’t like my comments, but you are free to comment on them in your own vugar way. I have the right to make my feelings know as well and I don’t feel the need to curse to express myself. Your hypocrisy is laughable, but expected, as you have one standard of behavior for those who share your views and another for those who don’t.
Thanks for your feedback
Ray
May 16th, 2009
10:38 am
With most of the Senators and Congressmen/women protesting the import of a bunch of animals to US soil, Mr. Wonderful seems to be re-thinking his options. The American people do not want these prisoners released in the US, plain and simple. And the politicians are reading their electorate loud and clear. So, his options get smaller as the Annointed One ponders his next move. I said I would close Gitmo but, after more reflection, this seems like a hasty move and maybe we better re-think this one. That’s what inexperienced people do…. say one thing to get elected and another thing once they achieve office and see how things really are. Same thing with Iraq. Maybe as things unfold, we will see how Mr. Bush was not the dumb sh** that all of the liberals rant about. But, Nahhhhhh, liberals are never wrong.
clyde
May 16th, 2009
10:42 am
Take a hike,Mike.Leave the Redneck to those of us who understand him.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 16th, 2009
10:45 am
He hates Christians
Please. The character parodies a brand of hypocritical “Christian” here in the South that we all recognize; sorry if the truth hurts.
mike
May 16th, 2009
10:51 am
clyde –
“Take a hike,Mike.Leave the Redneck to those of us who understand him.”
Nah, I think I’ll stick around and I’ll be sure to call our racists too, even if other racists “understand tham.”
DB –
“The character parodies a brand of hypocritical “Christian” here in the South that we all recognize; sorry if the truth hurts.”
What silliness. I racist would say the same thing about “parody of a brand of black people that we all recognize’. And do you think that racists think that their bigoted views are anything but “the truth”. All your comments demonstrate is that you live in the same world of hateful stereotyping that all bigots do.
mike
May 16th, 2009
10:54 am
I have to laugh at the “tolerant” liberals on this blog that are so quick to defend bigotry. Apparently, many of you believe that tolerance means that you tolerate those who share your religious and political views. True tolerance is respecting those whose religious and political views are different than your own.
SuperDave
May 16th, 2009
11:00 am
Mike,
There are a number of Christian conservative posters here who are routinely insulting to others who don’t share their religious views. Calling people baby killers, and implying that they are going to hell and other such nonsense. If Redneck goes, then Whiner has to go with him. He is always negative, constantly off topic, and continually insulting to liberals.
I’m not for kicking anyone off. Let Jay make that decision. Get a thicker skin and don’t take it personal.
Taxpayer
May 16th, 2009
11:02 am
I leave for a while to do some yard work and look what happens — nanny breaks loose from his chains and tramples all the flowers. I vote to keep redneck and dump the nanny.
Ray
May 16th, 2009
11:04 am
Mike,
Tolerance of other people’s views? On this blog, impossible.
AmVet
May 16th, 2009
11:06 am
I am not sure what is more interesting, the disappointed, blinded by rhetoric Democrats or the always myopic, ultra-dupable Republicans, who apparently can no longer accurately assess a politician and his positions if their very lives depended on it..
Barack Obama was the first Democratic candidate to run for POTUS to out raise the Republicans in corporate donations. EVER.
He has gone along with corporate power since he began as a state senator. He voted for the Wall Street bailout. He supported expanding the DoD’s budget. And expanding the military presence in Afghanistan. He has continued numerous BushCo heavy handed policies, though to his credit he has also undone numerous of the other backwards and inane ones.
He opposes single-payer coverage for all Americans, because the giant HMOs and BIG Pharma do.
A supposed champion of the poor, he doesn’t push for a living wage.
Some pilloried Ralph Nader for asking the question, “Is he going to be Uncle Sam for the American people or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations?”
I still find that a relevant question.
So, I think the answer to the question, “Has he betrayed the left”", is a resounding no.
If they had only looked closer at the man they would have seen him for what he is – someone more than happy to fit right in with the white oligarchy…
Mike
May 16th, 2009
11:06 am
SuperDave –
“If Redneck goes, then Whiner has to go with him. He is always negative, constantly off topic, and continually insulting to liberals.”
Fine with me. I was just as glad to see Commie go as I was Trash.
“Get a thicker skin and don’t take it personal.”
I’m not a practicing Christian, so there is nothing personal about it for me. I’m also not a minority, but I call out racism when I see it.
RW-(the original)
May 16th, 2009
11:08 am
Another blog posting, another round of mindless vulgarity from DB. At least some things never change and if Obama is a centrist then I’m the Prince of Monaco.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s entirely possible that Obama is being a pragmatist in the arena of foreign policy, but he sure owes President Bush a huge apology. Anybody that thinks he’s being a pragmatist domestically is simply out of their mind.
SuperDave
May 16th, 2009
11:14 am
Mike, 11:06
Fair enough.
But I don’t see Redneck as racist. How can you be racist for poking fun at religious conservatives. That’s not a “race.” Bigoted maybe, but not racist. Maybe you can call him racist for using the term “Those People,” but heck, for all we know, the guy might be black. But I think he’s usually fairly careful not to be insulting or vulgar.
AmVet
May 16th, 2009
11:20 am
Perhaps we can get our resident “constitutional scholar” to explain to us why we should probably just go ahead and get rid of that pesky First Amendment and make the Second one (which is probably more important in places like Kennesaw anyway) the new First Amendment.
Seriously, that some choose not to engage in intelligent discourse is their call.
As long as it does not rise to the level of hate speech, what’s all the fuss about?
Dusty
May 16th, 2009
11:29 am
Is Obama “betraying” the left? That would be the best thing he ever did. He SEEMS to be giving it a try.
As Mike has said, Obama is doing almost exactly what Bush had wanted to do in many ways. Bush had the information and the foresight for many of his decisions. He had to go through several army generals in Iraq for success, just as Lincoln did in the Civil War. Obama, who has been looking through a “dark glass” now sees the light. It is blinding liberals to their dismay.
As @@ and RW suggest, we best keep our eye on this “converted” liberal President who has not forgotten the socialism his “keepers” demand.
George American
May 16th, 2009
11:33 am
Mike is right about Redneck Convert. His know-it-all mocking attitude and contempt for decent Christians should get hi banned form this blog! What happened to tolerance for Christians and religious beliefs?
Oh that’s right, liberals are only tolerant for their own kind.
RW-(the original)
May 16th, 2009
11:36 am
Once you put a caveat for “hate speech” into the first amendment you no longer have a right to free speech since everybody is going to define “hate speech” differently. Maybe Mike believes that Redneck’s mockery of Christians is hate speech and why doesn’t he have the right to that definition?
Taxpayer
May 16th, 2009
11:36 am
Tolerance for Christians goes right along with tolerance for anything else. Nothing is sacred.
Michael H. Smith
May 16th, 2009
11:36 am
I love it. When Jay Bookman has to ask is Obama betraying the left, it is music to my conservative ears. Obama for whatever reason is more than likely having to face the actual realities of being President and finding out why Bush did many of the things Obama thought he would do differently, only to realize as President, “No He Can’t and No We Can’t” do what the left wingers think should be done.
Get use to Iraq left wingers, we will be there for many years to come and as Obama has found out we’ll be there for more than his next four years.
Yep, “once you are president, that the world is a very, very, complicated place.”
Mike
May 16th, 2009
11:38 am
SuperDave –
“But I don’t see Redneck as racist. How can you be racist for poking fun at religious conservatives. That’s not a “race.” Bigoted maybe, but not racist. ”
I agree. I never said that Convert was a racist, I was simply making the case that bigotry is bigotry, whether it is directed against a particular race or a particular religion.
Taxpayer
May 16th, 2009
11:38 am
We all have the same blog rights — the right to read other posts or not, to respond to other posts or not, and to get kicked off by Jay if we break his rules or not if we don’t.
Mike
May 16th, 2009
11:39 am
AmVet –
Who is “our resident “constitutional scholar” and who is making the case that the First Amendment should be abolished?
Mike
May 16th, 2009
11:44 am
Taxpayer –
You accused my bringing up the question of whether attacking Christians is bigotry of “trampling flowers”. If you feel that way about the debate, why are you engaging in it?
Taxpayer
May 16th, 2009
11:47 am
Who knows. If Obama keeps on leaning away from the far left, those secessionist might even want to stick it out with the Union. Then again, those secessionists might have other problems that they just cannot bring themselves to overcome. The bigots. Then, there are those constitutionalists. Don’t even get me started on everything wrong with that group….All this talk about bigots is just getting me all worked up.
Dusty
May 16th, 2009
11:48 am
Super Dave,
Are you kidding? RedNeck insults Southerners at least twice a day on this blog alone. He’s a phony leftover from the Civil War whose aim is to reduce all conservatives as extreme bigoted regional religious gun-toting nuts. That is his humorous cover for his own extreme bigoted anti-religious liberal zealotry.
Obviously many of you are just like him and enjoy such entertainment. He can be funny in his extremist efforts. He surely has furnished fodder for you foolish bigots of intolerance.
Brad Steel
May 16th, 2009
11:48 am
Obama is a superb strategist. A couple of minor head-fakes to the right he’s drawing in even more moderate support. (never thought I’d say this: Thanks, Karl Rove!)
Or maybe after the screamingly obvious failures of the conservative say-no-then-attack strategy, they have decided to act like sensible human beings. They need to do something to save their party.
AmVet
May 16th, 2009
11:48 am
Food for thought from the “beloved” Wiki:
Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation and incitement to riot.
In the United States, there is a general consensus that free speech values take precedence over limiting the harm caused by verbal insult. At the same time, some conservatives believe verbally expressed “discrimination” against religions such as blasphemy, or sometimes “morally incorrect” or “unpatriotic” speech which opposes deep-seated sociocultural or religious mores, and national interest, should be condemned or prohibited, while liberals feel the same way about verbal “discrimination” against identity-related personal characteristics, such as homosexuality and language of someone who happens not to speak English (in the US and Canada when it comes to bilingualism).
Mike,
Dave R is the self-proclaimed “expert” in such matters. And perhaps you missed my qualifier, “seriously” immediately following that paragraph regarding the US Bill of Rights.
Taxpayer’s pragmatism at 11:38 seems to me, the best approach…
getalife
May 16th, 2009
11:49 am
Yup, pro corporate and pro military has lost the left.
He is a one termer so the cons will have another opportunity to finish off our country.
We are pro torture and not a nation of laws so it is bound to happen.
@@
May 16th, 2009
11:50 am
I forgot to mention, jay. During the campaign Obama’s determination to invade a sovereign country came only after Hillary questioned his experience. Not sure how committed he was then….not sure how committed he is now. At the first sign of trouble he’s likely to
bail. He’s really, really experienced at that.
Anyhooters, you’re forgetting one thing:
In response to Hillary’s attacks Obama said: “If anything is irresponsible and naive, it was authorizing George Bush to send 160,000 young American men and women into Iraq apparently without knowing how they were going to get out.”
This is where I get to have fun.
What is Obama’s mission in Afghanistan? What is his mission in Pakistan? Does he have an exit strategy?
I Report :-) / You Whine :-(
May 16th, 2009
11:52 am
I think Mike just might be a bit full of himself but that is just my personal opinion, which I am able to give under the free speech rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution and an opinion that is within the bookman blog rules, if they haven’t changed again just recently.
To not understand that Redneck Convict is a parody is to be insecure in one’s beliefs, which is also the pure definition of a moderate, having no idea what you stand for and simply want to be loved by all, right, Mike?
I know Christians personally and so do a lot of other people, funny how we have yet to see them lynch any non believers, prey on little children or any other the other propaganda that the liberals gorge themselves on about us, if they choose to live in a stupid hate filled world of ignorance, why should this concern any true believer?
Now, on the other hand, Mike, it is now your burden to prove to everybody else that I am wrong when I say that liberals butcher full term infants in their mother’s womb, they are merchants of sodomy and all sorts of other depravity and that they hate the United States and everything it stands for.
Bwahahahahahahaha, try it if you like but why bother?
Mike
May 16th, 2009
11:54 am
AmVet –
The First Amendment does not give anyone the right to publish whatever they want on a blog. It prohibits the government from crimiinalizing speech. It does not grant anyone a right to be published.
Taxpayer –
I agree that the secessionists are making bizarre and flawed arguments, but how are they “bigots”?
George American
May 16th, 2009
11:55 am
I am a Southern, gun-toting Christian. But me and my kind are not cartoon characters to be mocked. Doing so is very similar to using jive-talk or Ebonics to make a point. It’s racist.
Mike
May 16th, 2009
11:57 am
I Report –
“Mike, it is now your burden to prove to everybody else that I am wrong when I say that liberals butcher full term infants in their mother’s womb, they are merchants of sodomy and all sorts of other depravity and that they hate the United States and everything it stands for.”
It’s not my burden at all. In my opinion you come from very extreme and intolerant viewpoint and often your comments drift in to bigotry.
getalife
May 16th, 2009
11:57 am
@@,
No, he does not. The military industrial complex has won again.
RW-(the original)
May 16th, 2009
12:00 pm
I think everybody is missing the true subtlety of Redneck’s comments. Since RC writes exactly the same thing day after day he’s really mocking Jay B who has the same tendency.
Enjoy your Saturday!
Later
Brad Steel
May 16th, 2009
12:00 pm
Whine actually writes this gem: “…merchants of sodomy and all sorts of other depravity…”
Sodomy Merchant: Get your sodomy here! Get your red hot sodomy!
Sodomy, sir?
Liberal: No thanks, but I am in the market for purchasing some of your depravity, please.
I Report :-) / You Whine :-(
May 16th, 2009
12:05 pm
B Weal- You do know what sodomy is, don’t you?
hahahaha
~~~~~~
Mike- Those three things I listed don’t happen in liberalism, eh, and are “extreme” views?
AmVet
May 16th, 2009
12:06 pm
Mike,
I never contended it did. But nor does it preclude it. And there, as RW notes, is the rub…
We walk a tight rope of freedom in this country.
Newt was one of the very first to glorify and nearly perfect the art of flame throwing and incivility (that grew into the oft derided and controversial “politics of personal destruction”?), on the national stage.
Though brilliant in some ways, I found the man shameful and more damaging to the nation than helpful in this regard, as he spawned millions of little Newts.
But the flip side was to create this crowd who has come to live by inane political correctness and are thin-skinned beyond belief.
Personally, I’ll take vulgarity and invective over stupidity and willful ignorance almost every time…
I Report :-) / You Whine :-(
May 16th, 2009
12:09 pm
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has backed down slightly in her fight with the CIA, saying that she really meant only to criticize the Bush administration rather than career officials.
Isn’t it wonderful to see the idiot that turned loose the pack of rabid, foaming dogs get treed by them?
Bark, bark.
ty webb
May 16th, 2009
12:09 pm
He’s as empty as his campaign rhetoric. He’s as empty as the space between George Bush’s ears. But hey, he’s playing on house money. he’ll sail through the first 4 years. Those that challenge him are “racists”. When things aren’t improving, it will be because he “inherited” such a mess. Meanwhile his cult of followers will still be cheerleading even as that “chill up their legs” subsides. But hey, him being elected makes us feel so good inside. Whatever.
booger
May 16th, 2009
12:10 pm
@@
To answer your questions I will try to be as clear as Obama’s press secretary:
Our mission in Afghanistan is being developed by a task force of high level people and will be sent to the task force review committee for review later this year.
Our mission in Pakistan is complicated and evolving as conditions on the ground change. We have been assured, however, by Pakistan that we are on the right path and that they have everything under control if we will keep sending them lots of money and arms and whatever they need when they need it.
As far as an exit strategy, I am happy to report that we now have some top people, mostly professors and career politicians plus a few community activists looking at this very issue. We have also hired “ACORN” to do a nonpartisian national poll to see what the American people think about the issue.
So as everyone can see, we are rounding the turn and headed home on having these problems solved.