Allahpundit and Ed Morrissey over at
Hot Air noted that self described "moderate-conservative" David Brooks (NYTspeak for right leaning commie) may be wiggling off of Obama's leash. He went so far as to title his NYT Op-Ed
"A Moderate Manifesto". In that opinion piece he argued, as forcefully as a moderate can I suppose, that the people who think like him should be in charge. A radical shift to the middle. A Centrist Revolution if you will. Remember, remember the 2nd of March!
The U.S. has traditionally had a relatively limited central government. But federal spending as a share of G.D.P. is zooming from its modern norm of 20 percent to an unacknowledged level somewhere far beyond.
Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.â€
I say "remember" twice above because by March 5th it was all over. Brooks has run home or, at least back to the White House's good graces. In his 3/5 opinion piece
"When Obamatons Respond" he was back on his leash and rendered safe again for dinner invitations. On second thought that was unfair. I should not have referred to the Brooks opinion piece as his own opinion. It begins thus...
On Tuesday, I wrote that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous. The column generated a large positive response from moderate Obama supporters who are anxious about where the administration is headed. It was not so popular inside the White House. Within a day, I had conversations with four senior members of the administration and in the interest of fairness, I thought I’d share their arguments with you today.
What follows in that Op-Ed is the opinion of Rahm Emanuel if not Obama himself. What have they got to all day anyway, other than keep the media in line? David Brooks' feint to the middle can't hide the truth of his real intentions. To fall to his knees and give the White House his print space. His space of all people at that paper. It's David Brooks' job at the New York Times to be "The Republican" for cryin' out loud. (He has the same job title at PBS) Read it for yourself. The very words have the air and flow of Obama's sonorous and teleprompted mouth. Just click the linky folks and you will see I'm not crazy. Brooks was allowed to sum "his" piece up and seems somewhat thankful for the concession.
Nonetheless, the White House made a case that was sophisticated and fact-based. These people know how to lead a discussion and set a tone of friendly cooperation. I’m more optimistic that if Senate moderates can get their act together and come up with their own proactive plan, they can help shape a budget that allays their anxieties while meeting the president’s goals.
I'd say I told you so but for the fact that I didn't. Not because I didn't know but more because we all knew already and have for quite some time. Why in the world do I feel a twinge of disappointment? I don't mind being an outsider in the least. But God in Heaven why do we allow our supposed ideological pals to claim they speak for anyone other than themselves, let alone our philosophy. It's a pretty big lie among the many big lies of our times. I for one have had my fill of anti-capitalist pseudo conservatives. I've lost my faith in "moderates" too.
