Free Markets, Free People

Pushing the liberal agenda

Now that progressives, liberals, whatever they’re calling themselves today, are secure in the fact that Barack Obama will be in the Oval Office for another 4 years, they plan on doing everything they can to see that he does what he said he’d do way back in 2008 - or at least what they thought they heard him say he’d do.

Those parts include climate change, drone strikes, gun control and closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, among others.

We’ve seen the first shots fired in the gun control advocacy (no pun intended) with the absurd Costas gun-control editorial at the half-time of an NFL game.  And, of course, Dianne Feinstein is making the usual “assault weapons ban” noises.

By the way, as a complete aside, but speaking of gun control, I want to show you a classic exchange:

Can you say pwned?!

Anyway, back to the subject at hand – the liberal agenda.  Remember, Obama told the Russian President that he’d be “more flexible” after his re-election.  There’s absolutely no reason that he won’t be less politically inhibited (because in the political world, that’s what “more flexible” really means) domestically as well as internationally is there?

But now?  Now it’s safe:

“Liberals in the media are going to be tougher on Obama and more respectful at the same time,” Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker’s chief political commentator and a former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, told POLITICO. “He was the champion of our side, he vanquished the foe….. [but] now liberals don’t have to worry about hurting his chances for re-election, so they can be tougher in urging him to do what he should be doing.”

Apparently the NY Times plans on leading the way in pushing and prodding Obama to do what he said he’d do (or what the NYT thinks he said he’d do):

The New York Times editorial page launched a series titled “Goals for a New Term,” calling on the president to implement stronger gun control laws and shutter Gitmo, which he had pledged to do during his first year in office. The tone of the editorials has been sharply critical: On guns, the editors suggested Obama lacked courage. On Guantanamo, they slammed his administration for deciding “to adopt the Bush team’s extravagant claims of state secrets and executive power, blocking any accountability for the detention and brutalization of hundreds of men at Guantánamo and secret prisons, and denying torture victims their day in court.”

Gitmo?  There are rumblings out there – again – of the Federal government purchasing a closed prison with the idea of moving the jihadists in captivity there on to the shores of the US.   Seems prison is okay for the jihadists if the left initiates the idea of buying one and housing them there.  But holding them in Gitmo, a place that wasn’t their idea (but clearly is superior to moving them here) is just beyond the pale because, you know, it was that evil Bush’s idea.  So it’s not about incarceration, it’s about the myth of Gitmo … or something.

Obama has claimed he has no interest in climate change legislation/taxation in his second term (well, he doesn’t as long as there’s a Republican House … if that changes in 2014, he might develop an immediate interest).  Then he’s said he does.  Then, yeah, not so much.  So who the hell knows.  But what we do know is progressives intend to try to push him on this and it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if he responds positively.  He certainly has nothing to lose.  And it may provide a distraction if the economy keeps tanking.  He can couch his attempt to tax thin air in the usual class warfare (fat cat corporations fouling the streams and polluting the air while melting the ice caps to boot).  He can call for “social justice” because, you know, climate change effects those least able to afford it first … or something.

Drone strikes?  Yawn.  A small faction of the left concerns itself with drone strikes.  It is classic leading from behind.  Get over it progressives.  Your President approves all those arial assasinations himself.  It is part of the responsibilities that Nobel Peace Prize winners must endure.

Sarcasm aside, it will indeed be interesting to see if Obama does anything for progressives in his 2nd term.  Will he become an activist president or will he vote “present?”

Well, let’s see – is he taking the lead in fiscal cliff negotiations and working tirelessly with Congress to ensure a solution before the deadline or is he going on a 20 day vacation to Hawaii ending January 6th?

~McQ

17 Responses to Pushing the liberal agenda

  • “Liberals in the media are going to be tougher on Obama and more respectful at the same time,

    >>>> So from now on, when they’re done kissing his ass they’ll rub a little talc on it so as not to get chafed from all the lips?

  • Off topic, but any bets that Morsi shows back up sometime shortly with some people willing to break things, like heads.

    • They have become media manipulation masters.  You saw Bin Laden’s rhetoric get refined and become more consistent with the Left’s narrative.  That wasn’t random and I even suspect they got help from people here on what to say that benefited both the Left and Muslim Brotherhood types.
       
      As long as the protests don’t threaten his hold, nothing will happen.  What are these people going to do to him?  Sit around and whine?  That was a threat to Malachi because, despite what was said, wasn’t entirely secure as President for Life.  He had to worry about too much negative public opinion and at the same time looking weak.
       
      So he will and can simply ignore them for now.  He’ll at least wait until some protesters do something to justify police reaction before taking action.

      • I think he’s off getting a read on his Army to see if they’ll tolerate and/or help him do a little cleaning.
         
        He’s probably also getting calls from Baracka telling him where they’ll pretend the “red lines” are going to be.

  • http://townhall.com/video/ca-teachers-union-indoctrinating-children
    I actually like this new ballsy look from the Collective.
    Ed Asner is a flat-out Marxist, as he makes clear by even voicing this crap.

  • Why the claims of ‘progressives’ being tougher on Obama are meaningless.
    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/03-4
    Too long to quote.

  • About closing Guantanamo…
    President Barack Obama’s aides said they would recommend he veto a $631.4 billion defense authorization measure now before the Senate unless it’s changed.
    Among provisions cited as unacceptable in a statement today from the White House is the bill’s limit on using funds to transfer detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to other countries.
     
    Oops.  Somebody got suckered into believing his campaign promise here.  Not that it matters anymore.
    source:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-29/defense-bill-veto-urged-by-obama-aides-over-guantanamo.html

  • The Javon Belcher/Jason Whitlock/Bob Costas insanity has turned into a death of a black woman committed by a black man under a black President being blamed on white gun owners.

  • Now that progressives, liberals, whatever they’re calling themselves today,

    What was a self-proclaimed “progressive”, then “liberal”, then “progressive” again, was originally identified, in the 1880s, was “totalitarian” and “REACTIONARY”.
    This is why one must not fall for semantic infiltration and self-descriptions.

  • Pinhead Piers should also note that muskets were high-tech military weaponry at that time.  They could have limited possession to matchlocks, wheellocks, or even edged weapons.