Help me out here-why are cons now claiming Obama?

[submerged99]

I know that some are upset about Obama's transition team and cabinet picks, but this isn't about that.

I'm trying to figure out what those conservative pundits, rejoicing or celebrating Obama's picks, could possibly be hoping to accomplish.

They spent all this time demonizing Obama to their base and now they are running to embrace him.

Is this strategic or is it simply their quisling streak coming out in full bloom?

[Recursion]

1. Some quislingness, some small-c conservativeness

Chris Buckley has a point that Obama is a small-c conservative (he believes in basing policy on empirical evidence, weighing the impact of changes against their dangers, and assuming a Clausewitzian "friction" applies to all state action). To the extent that Conservatives still have a conservative hiding in them somewhere, a lot of Obama's style is stuff they will like.

[elleng]

2. Who?

.

[Trajan]

3. Kiss of Death ?

Maybe they see value in promoting the image of a 'conservative' Obama, so as to 'split' the Democratic party supporters ..... Perhaps using DU and others as models of how to divide a party ....

[Radical Activist]

6. I noticed

that DU is doing a great job of helping them point a picture of a conservative Obama.

[Art_from_Ark]

15. So voting with bu$h on the bailout bill, FISA bill, Iraq war funding,

and who knows how many other issues, as well as pledging to escalate the war in Afghanistan, is progressive?

[Radical Activist]

23. You mean when Obama voted against Iraq war funding?

Obama opposed the war from the start and only voted to fund it twice. I don't think symbolic votes to cut off funding was ever a realistic strategy for ending the way anyway. Holding that against him is the kind of purity test someone comes up with in a campaign so that they can portray themselves as the most liberal candidate. It doesn't make Obama pro-war. Even on FISA, Obama acknowledged that the compromise wasn't his first choice, and his preferred position was a more progressive one.

You can cherry pick a few bad votes by anyone, including Kucinich. Overall, Obama has a liberal career record. I'm not going to disregard someone's entire career because of two or three hoops they didn't jump through.

I'm concerned about Afghanistan and will remind him that he earned many votes for being the peace candidate, and not by promising to turn Afghanistan into another Vietnam.

[lligrd]

4. Hoping They Can Stay Out Of Jail And Keep Robbing Us Blind

is my guess.

[Radical Activist]

5. They want to make it easier for Obama to move right

by creating the illusion that he's already there. They're trying to co-opt him as one of their own. They're prepping the media to not give Obama a hard time if he does move right.

[Two Americas]

9. RA - curious here

Your two posts seem to me to contradict each other.

[Radical Activist]

11. I'm not surprised by your comment

but how so?

[Two Americas]

12. you probably think I am being argumentative

You said -

"They want to make it easier for Obama to move right by creating the illusion that he's already there. They're trying to co-opt him as one of their own. They're prepping the media to not give Obama a hard time if he does move right."

That is a good insight, I think.

Then you say this -

"I noticed that DU is doing a great job of helping them paint a picture of a conservative Obama."

So are you saying that Leftists here (never mind all the Clinton feuding) are helping the right wingers? So should Obama move to the right, which is what the MSM is trying to give him cover to do, we should not call that move to the right for what it is because that will advance their game?

I am not saying you are wrong, but it is such a game within a game you are implying - so complex. I may agree with you - I don't know - but I don't understand what you are saying. The two statements seem to contradict one another. Maybe I am missing something.

[Radical Activist]

13. OK

You wrote: "So should Obama move to the right, which is what the MSM is trying to give him cover to do, we should not call that move to the right for what it is because that will advance their game?"

He hasn't moved right yet. If Obama does abandon his campaign promises by moving right then I'll criticize him too. But, making negative predictions based on speculation before Obama even has a chance to do anything lacks credibility, spreads cynicism, and lowers people's expectations of Obama.

I think there's a much more effective approach to moving Obama left. State that Obama campaigned as a liberal (he did) instead of calling him a centrist. Say that we elected a liberal President and that we expect him to live up to his liberal campaign platform. That's a positive message which will make Obama see that there will be negative consequences for moving right. That's a framing we want in the media as well.

People who take a superior attitude that they were never "duped" into believing Obama is liberal aren't going to accomplish anything positive with a cynical line of reasoning. If Obama eventually moves to the right, and we've successfully convinced everyone that Obama was a moderate all along, then no one will see it as a move to the right. That takes away our ability to portray a rightward move as a betrayal of his campaign.

I want everyone to see Obama as a liberal so that if he moves right there will be a bigger outcry from the public and the press. I also think he campaigned on a liberal platform so that's an honest approach. Conservatives want people to see Obama as a moderate/conservative so that no one will cry foul if he moves right.

And if fatalistic cynicism from those who KNOW Obama is going to move right wins the day then the only reaction from the public will be to throw up their hands and say "I knew it all along. Maybe I won't bother voting next year."

[Two Americas]

14. I see

Thanks. That is credible.

[bigtree]

19. I don't see what's so harmful about people voicing their opinions

. . .outside of a campaign. You cite some future election which is supposed to be influenced in some negative way by the dissent expressed toward Obama's less progressive choices. Maybe that advocacy of progressive initiatives and progressive choices for his Cabinet could actually help accomplish the change he promised.

I don't know why those who are looking for more progressive appointments are being cast as troublemakers just because Obama has leaned the other way in his picks.

It's perfectly reasonable to express concern about the past records and actions of those who he's chosen to sit so close to his ear. That prospect makes it even more imperative that those progressive voices left out of his administration are heard. That is, unless you feel our responsibility to our government and our democracy ends with our vote.

[Radical Activist]

21. Read my post again.

I'm not arguing against dissent or advocacy of progressive causes. I'm arguing for more intelligent dissent and more effective advocacy. Every time I make this point someone misses the nuance and responds with a straw man about how they're being silenced.

Chicken Little hysteria about how Obama is a conservative, Nader was right, and nothing good will happen over the next four years is not thoughtful dissent or effective advocacy, imo. But, that's the type of criticism I'm seeing most often. I think people are stuck in a rut from the last 28 years of conservative Presidents. They need to learn new ways of pushing a President left when that President is already 3/4 of the way there. It calls for a different approach.

When you convince someone that their vote doesn't matter because the same bad things will happen anyway, it doesn't make most people more likely to vote again next time. It makes people more likely to stay home like they did in '94.

[bemildred]

7. Noise and obfuscation are good in themselves.

When the facts and reality based thinking are against you, noise and fucking things up is good strategy. It works as distraction, it works as stalling, it works to prevent accountability and transparency, it works in so many different ways.

[submerged99]

8. I was thinking it might be a set up

I think some are trying to suck up but I think some of this embracing of Obama might be disingenuous. As in they can claim they stood behind the new president and gave him a chance only to be let down by his "lefty/socialist" positions. Then they can go wingnut, batsh*t crazy at him for his first term.

Either that or they are still so crushed they don't know how to respond to President Obama and are casting wildly and erraticallly for something that will motivate their base again.

[WCGreen]

10. If by conservative you mean an cost effective way to deliver the

social contract, then I am all for that...

I don't believe Obama is a conservative in The Milton Freeman vien, a man who basically was saying you are all at the mercy of the free markets. The trouble with that propositio is that it would stunt the free movement between classes as the upper classes would do what evr it took to perserve their wealth. We have seen that is what they love to preach and do.

[Berry Cool]

16. You've never heard of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"?

It's only temporary anyway. They'll let Obama work for a little while, then claim what he's done hasn't worked, and that we need to elect Republicans to Congress to stand against him. They're hoping they will sound more credible when they do that if they can point back to now and say "When he started out, we were on his side, but..."

[annabanana]

17. "Success Has Many Parents And Failure Is An Orphan " . .?

THEY are winners. .

Obama won

Therefore, Obama is theirs.

[fla nocount]

18. The pundits are corporately owned and like Obama are team players. n/t

[datasuspect]

20. because the two party system is a farce?

and primarily meant to distract voters who are trained since childhood to respond to advertising and sports team style "fan behavior?"

[leftofthedial]

22. They are happy that he's picked a very repuke-like economic team.

They are all IMF, Wall Street, Fed kinds of people. They've all supported the trickle-down policies of the past and the supply-side "bailout" privatization of the US Treasury.

Why wouldn't they be happy?

[ColbertWatcher]

24. The GOP always co-opt liberal ideas, people. n/t

[EFerrari]

25. Exactly, especially when they are near a power center. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

26. When the liberal is near a power center and the GOP is not! LOL! n/t

[changemonger]

27. He sent them reassuring signs, or so they think

...with his appointments of Beltway establishment figures.

There's nothing they fear more than "change".