Yea, he really shouldn't stand by his values in his first four years because it might endanger his 2nd term. Are you kidding? His health care plan wasn't particularly leftist as much as it's corporatist, the way he has run the war and his blatant disregard for civil rights has been in line with the last administration. Don't look for gun control out of this administration, he is moderate (the new moderate is the old right) on the issue. I can't really think of a socialist policy that he has enacted. You could call trying to buy his way out of the recession socialist if you wanted, but that is really just a case of text book econ poorly focused and cheaply enacted. I guess bailing out the banks and the auto companies could be called socialist, but your average socialist wouldn't see it that way. He did a bit for worker rights which is leftist, but no where near the magnitude of his corporate welfare programs. The guy is mostly centrist with a few areas of extreme fascist (enshrining the right to indefinitely detain american citizens without due process into law, increased use of NSL, increased monitoring of the communications of U.S. citizens and and a record rate of FOIA rejections to name a few), just a smattering of leftism and a few good speeches. He won't go left ever. He isn't a leftist or he has painted himself into a crazy corner of political ineffectiveness and political paranoia that forces himself to moderate his policies to death.
Also, that bailout policy is a Republican one by any definition. Any stimulus Obama signed was just a continuation of Republican designed and executed Stimulus Bailout schemes: http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_ba...You could call trying to buy his way out of the recession socialist if you wanted, but that is really just a case of text book econ poorly focused and cheaply enacted.
> Yea, he really shouldn't stand by his values in his first four years because it might endanger his 2nd term. Are you kidding? That's not what I said at all.
Some of the choices he has made and policies he has pursued could be chalked up to pragmatism, I suppose (continuing the wars, budgetary choices, etc.). I don't agree with a lot of it, but maybe in some cases the choice was unavoidable. The one I can't stomach is the FOIA thing. That is a conscious choice when a huge part of his campaign was based upon restoring transparency to government. On this, he has been disgraceful. Romney, if his tax returns and his record as governor are any indication, will be equally bad. I never thought it could be worse than Bush/Cheney.
My biggest disappointment is his failure to renounce torture and assassination by the state. The USA has conceded the moral high ground on these issues, and it's a damn disgrace.
I think his point is that liberals are reticent to complain now because they don't want to cost him the election, not that Obama should wait to go left. Personally, I'd rather Obama over Romney for a likely Supreme Court appointment alone. But not for much else.
Your response to cgod is what the article is defining as "not holding Obama responsible." You have brushed past all of the things listed only to find another reason not to vote for Romney. And hey, I get it. I'm not voting for Romney. I bounce live in between a solid blue state and a solid swing state ... with my state residency in the blue state. I have been tempted to change residency to my swing state digs just to feel like my vote for the "Screw-torture-we'll-just-murder-your-ass-with-a-robotic-death-squad" President will mean something! But I haven't nor will I. I love this place. ¡Viva Cascadia!
I honestly don't think it's brushing past those things to choose the lesser-of-two-evils. I am fully aware of my discontent. Each candidate has plenty of reasons not to get my vote, Romney just has more. It probably felt cathartic for Conor Friedersdorf to write this article, but I bet he will vote for Obama.