Wick Allison, the former publisher of National Review who endorsed Obama in September 2008, now recants:
[It's] clear that on the two fundamental problems of self-government, there is only one party in America. Those two fundamental problems were identified in the Federalist Papers as money and power. With a few notable exceptions such as Tom Coburn, Bernie Sanders, and Rand Paul in the Senate, and Paul Ryan and Ron Paul in the House, minor differences on these two questions spur most of the public debate. But once in power, the two sides fundamentally agree. In office, Obama has accepted Bush’s expansion of the executive as a settled doctrine, ordered the military into a war without even the pretence of protecting national security, and continued his predecessor’s ruinous fiscal policies (and doubled down on them at that).
So, putting aside labels and partisan loyalties and marginal squabbles, ask yourself as I am asking myself: does it even matter who is president now? Judging solely by his actions, would there be any major difference on the two central questions of American government if the president today were Bush, McCain, Clinton, or Obama?
I'm as dismayed as Wick on Afghanistan, state secrets, Gitmo, and the failure to lead on the debt. But I think he exaggerates.
If McCain or Clinton had been in office, I think we would have already bombed Iran and invaded Libya with ground troops. As for the fiscally ruinous policies, surely we have to make an exception for the biggest downturn since the 1930s. It is one thing to ramp up spending on war and entitlements when you are not in a depression, it's another to back a stimulus to prevent the bottom falling out of the entire world economy.
I would have been more enthusiastic about Obama's foreign policy if he hadn't been trounced by the Bibi faction in Washington, hadn't completely gone wobbly on Libya, and hadn't capitulated to Rahm on fear of terrorism. But compared with McCain? We are very lucky to have a calm hand at the top.
The Dish 