Politico reports that "moderate" New York Times columnist David Brooks confessed to radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, regarding President Obama:

I still like him and admire him personally, but he’s certainly more liberal than I thought he was. He’s more liberal than he thinks he is. He thinks he’s just slightly center-left, but when you get down to his instincts, they’re pretty left. And his problem is that he can’t really act on them, because it would be political disaster. And so that means, I think right now he’s doing very little, proposing very little.”

It only took the NY Times pet faux conservative genius RINO 3 years to see the obvious. Brooks is  a bright guy, but it was all too easy to get unlimited airtime on the cable and network shows praising Obama.....you were the pet "conservative" of the mainstream media. Now, expect no more airtime on CNN for you, David! Peel off your  "Republicans for Obama " bumper sticker.

More liberal or socially RADICAL?

Reparations cost money ya know and we know who gives that money to Uncle Sam.
No good deed goes unpunished.

This post has been removed.

So, you're quoting a card-carrying MSM member...
 
...of whose party allegiance you dispute out-of-hand...

...about a president whose sincerity and integrity you flatly deny and whose ideology you scorn so righteously as illegitimate...

...on a subject (the political spectrum) you see as totally misrepresented by said hated MSM.

Gotcha.


However, if what Brooks says is true, then that means Obama is NOT acting specifically on his more liberal instincts and is, in fact, governing from closer to the center.  So, which one is it...??

And doesn't "RINO" automatically imply "moderate" by its very squishiness...??

So, hold on, we're quoting member of the liberal conspiratorial media as saying Obama is a radical leftist....

...and he's doing it not based on what Obama has actually DONE....

....but on his perception of how Obama feels inside about his own instincts?




Ohhhhhh...so that's what you've all been on about.



WOW




Let me be clear folks: When I talk about whether Obama is a radical leftist or center-left, I look at what he has done.

He can worship a f**king pink horse at night if he likes, but unless he tries to establish the United States of American Church of Pink Horse, then it doesn't matter a damn.

Persons personal political inclinations are irrelevant if they cannot act on them at all.

He is and will remain center-left because that's what he has been able and will be able to do. Even with, you might note, 60-dem.




I would never vote for a professed communist. They would be a complete lame duck for these very reasons. But if a President was elected and Mao's little red book was found under his WH pillow, I suppose I would be able to sleep despite the sudden death by tachardyia of all neoconservatives.

Why wouldn't it matter? Because he couldn't ACT on his beliefs.

(I'm obviously ruling out giving secrets to the Russians).

In Response to Re: David Brooks, NY Times RINO: Obama more liberal than I thought:


Reparations?  What are you talking about?
 
And what is socially radical is your retrograde views: how is that racial delta theory doing?

I think all politicians do things which can label them liberal.  I keep saying it is hard to tell the difference between those who claim they are conservative and those who admit to being liberal.

marco rubio thinks the process of becoming a US citizen, takes too long.  He want to create a drive thru window for express citizenship.

Perry gives free tuition to illegals.

Newt making a commercial with Pelosi.

I can go on all day.

In Response to Re: David Brooks, NY Times RINO: Obama more liberal than I thought:


Thanks for refraining from doing so, we are all better off for it. 

In Response to David Brooks, NY Times RINO: Obama more liberal than I thought:


Obama was more liberal than he thought?

See, right there is proof that the only way you can become a liberal is to have half your brains sucked out.