>Barak Obama has his sights set on reversing all of George Bush’s moderate and conservative actions, changes so startling and aggressive it is as if he were taking a knife to the white man’s throat, “setting thing right”
You can sense the pent-up Democrat frustration now focused on making those who support conservative measures bend their knees as never before, and it is about these liberal, self-defeating actions by the Democrats that conservatives think of their mission in life as “Getting America Right” after Obama has ruined it, and, hopefully, no later than 2012.
A team of four dozen advisers worked for months in virtual solitude, consulting with liberal advocacy groups, identifying regulatory and policy changes Obama is now implementing.
Transition advisers compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that are being swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats.
“The kind of regulations they are looking at” are those imposed by Bush for “overtly political” reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration’s Office of Management and Budget.
Here are some of the actions the black president is taking to put down the hated white man. Such hatred should be reserved for terrorists, not a president who kept us safe for eight years:
1. Abortion — Funding for abortion literature and help to abortion clinics. Remember, this is the same Barak Obama who told the Pope recently that he was against abortion. The man cannot be trusted. When he’s in Israel he assures Olmert that he is on their side. When he is visiting with Plalastinian Muslim and the Hamas he assures them he is not their enemy. Whose side is he on, anyway? Probably neither, which is a dangerous foreign policy position.
The new president has lifted a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion.
2. Repeal the Ronald Reagan Star Wars Defense System. This is an insanely dangerous move, but it will also likely be followed up by an announcement that Obama will not carry out Bush’s plans to ring Eastern Europe with defensive missiles. That would be a foolish mistake, a sure sign of weakness that could invite Vladimir Putin to attack more Baltic States to gain back lost Russian territory. And how can The Ukraine, Finland and Poland feel good about that kind of misdirection which will be interpreted as weakness in the Kremlin?
3. Bush’s controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research — controversial only in liberal views and accepted broadly in America where 90 percent of the people say they believe in God– a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson’s. Since anti-God people are in the minority in the U.S., Obama’s views on this and other issues is the one that may be viewed as the most highly controversial.
4. Environmental control. The “Green” movement.
As late as a month ago a spokeswoman said that “Before he (Obama) made any decisions on potential executive or legislative actions, he would confer with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as interested groups.” The bipartisanship on which Obama ran has already been breached. Republican congressman John Bahner of Michigan said much of the Rupublican House opposition to the $825B bailout bill is because Democrats in the House did not consult with Republicans and allow them to offer counter proposals in the spirit of bipartisanship, but forged ahead alone, drafting a bill that they hoped to stuff down the throats of Republicans and “blue dog” Democrats.
Blue Dog Democratic Coalition is a group of 47 moderate and conservative Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives. The Blue Dogs promote, among other things, fiscal conservatism and accountability. Many members come from conservative districts, where liberal Democrats comprise a decided minority of the general population. In 2006, Blue Dog candidates such as Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth were elected in conservative-leaning districts, ending years of Republican dominance in these districts.
The Blue Dogs are the political descendants of a now defunct Southern Democratic group known as the Boll Weevils, who played a critical role in the early 1980s by supporting President Ronald Reagan‘s tax cut plan. The Boll weevils, in turn, may be considered the descendants of the “states’ rights” Democrats of the 1940’s through 60’s.
The Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1994 during the 104th Congress to give more conservative members from the Democratic party a unified voice. The Blue Dogs are viewed by some as a continuation of the socially conservative wing of the Democratic party prominent during the presidency of Harry S Truman. But the only stated policy position of the Blue Dogs is fiscal conservatism, and many of the members of the coalition hold liberal views on social issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, and gay rights.
Bush’s August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in Abortion.
Obama is trying to walk both sides of the moral issue street, having had the first openly gay Episcopal bishop offer a prayer at the Lincoln Memorial at an inaugural event, for example. This choice was likely a political response to criticism of Obama for selecting anti-gay marriage pastor Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at his January 20 inauguration, according to Western Standard.ca blog.
Warren backed the ban on same-sex marriage that passed in his home state of California on the November ballot, said Newsmax. In trying to keep social conservatives and social liberals happy simultaneously, Obama will likely come to look weak and indecisive.
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. This is part of the “real change” promised by Obama during the election.
While Obama maintains that his top priority is to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some — such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards — that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.
The president has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration’s decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. “Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer,” Obama said in January.
California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California’s rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation’s automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country. However, Detroit has already signaled difficulties coming in maintaining their auto production while trying to produce more gas efficient and less polluting cars.
“An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.
Robert Sussman, who was the EPA’s deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and directed EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding, but that doesn’t make it true. Others have written opposite position papers. It as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with his brand of scientific advice.
Some related reforms embraced by Obama’s transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled “Change for America,” published by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, recommends, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.
The center’s influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff was swept into planning for Obama’s first 100 days in office.
The National Energy Council would be a counterpart to the White House National Economic Council that Clinton created in a 1993 executive order.
“It would make sure all the oars are rowing in the right direction” — actually the direction would be due left — “and ensure that climate change policy “gets lots of attention inside the White House,” said Daniel J. Weiss, a former Sierra Club official and senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
The center’s new book urges Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama’s transition team have already embraced the idea.
Other early Obama initiatives may address the need for improved food and drug regulation and chart a new course for immigration enforcement, some Obama advisers say. But they add that only a portion of his early efforts will be aimed at undoing Bush initiatives.
Despite enormous pent-up Democratic frustration, Obama and his team realize they must strike a balance between undoing Bush actions and setting their own course, said Winnie Stachelberg, the center’s senior vice president for external affairs.
A large part of the Democrats’ frustration is their self-imposed hatred for George Bush and the conservative Republican agenda. They have told themselves for so long that Bush was doing a bad job that they have started to believe it. Unfortunately, some Republicans bought onto that line also, and apparently, like sheep, voted for Obama, which is unfortunate.
“It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it,” Stachelbergerg said. But not as long as they think, especially if Obama continues on the torrid pace he has set in turning over conservative policy.