With a dead pan delivery reminiscent of the late Johnny Carson, Barack Obama recently delivered that one liner while speaking to Congressional Republicans.
The Republicans, to their credit, limited their outward reaction to scattered snickering and a few derisive snorts. Side-splitting guffaws would have been completely justified.
In a long list of ridiculous statements which have spewed from the mouths of politicians, that one must surely rise to the top of the list.
Of course Barack Obama is an ideologue. The only question really is to what ideology is he so dogmatically committed? Is he a social progressive or just plain socialist? Liberal democrat or committed Marxist?
Whatever term used to describe his ideology, President Obama is a true believer who remains committed to the leftist policies which the American public has repeatedly opposed. Instead of starting from scratch with health care reform, the president has vowed to move forward using the existing legislation. Because of his ideology, Obama remains convinced that he is right and the American people are just not smart enough to understand what he is trying to do.
Democrats who hoped that Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts might have convinced the president to take a more centrist stance must have been sorely disappointed in the past few weeks.
Not only is he refusing to back down on health care, Obama has also reiterated his support for regulatory reform of questionable constitutionality and the potentially economically devastating cap and trade legislation.
While preaching civility and bipartisanship, he continues to chide Republicans basically for not agreeing with him. In addressing Congressional Republicans, Obama accused them of likening his health care reform plan to a Bolshevik plot. Perhaps he should spend less time whining and more time considering what about his policies might evoke comparisons to Bolshevism in the first place.
The hypocrisy and arrogance is simply beyond belief. The man who promised transparency finds it acceptable to negotiate back room deals and political bribes to get a health care bill passed. The man who promised bipartisanship pointedly excluded Republicans from the health care bill reconciliation process when he had a filibuster proof majority. Now he wants to work with Republicans? Unbelievable.
I am sure Obama will make a good show of bipartisanship, but his unwillingness to scrap the current health care legislation shows only that he is determined to advance his agenda – an agenda that is, at best, socially progressive and, at worst, unconstitutional. He sees this agenda, not the Democrat's agenda and not America's agenda – his agenda, as too important to fail.
Obama recently said he would rather be a good one term president than a mediocre two-term president. What that means is that he does not care if he gets reelected, does not care about public opinion as long as he accomplishes his goals.
A politician willing to sacrifice his reelection bid because he is so determined to enact legislation that the majority of the voters oppose? Only a true believer – an ideologue - would do that. Too bad his ideology does not focus more on following the Constitution than circumventing it.
Kristi Reed is a reporter for the Barrow Journal. She can be reached at email@example.com.
I think you got one thing correct, America is centrist (slight right), but that doesn't mean the political views of the American people is the right solution. If it were we would not have ended slavery, women would not vote, children would work instead of attending school, etc.
What I didn't realize that your article brings to light is that conservatives see a difference in between socially progressive and socialist. Even with exposing that insight you do a very good job of whining for the republican cause in your article just to jab at the president. The thing this president does get right is health care is economically devastating, along with unmonitored banking devoid of evaluating market conditions.
Maybe he is an ideologue, but at least he is presenting solutions to try and avoid future problems, which is more that the republicans can say about when they were in power. Do we really want to discuss unconstitional behaviors amoungst the parties.
Right Anny. Because for eight years straight, Bush was never maligned by democrats or the media. He never received any criticism at all.
Give me a break. We are free to take "jabs" at any president, right, wrong or indifferent. If a president messes up, regardless of whether there's a R or D next to the name, they should own up to it and should pay the consequences.
Saying a politician is not an idealogue is like saying water is not wet.
I see no difference in what the democrats and republicans want to do, but in how they want to accomplish their tax and spend tyranny throughout the entire world. Global power is what both want and the new Roman Empire is about to collapse. Keep your garden green and your powder dry.