[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Some of his policies may be viewed as "centrist," but there is disagreement as to what the "center" is, or if there even is such a thing. His major accomplishment, the HCB, is very leftist.

I think a leftist position on health care would have been for single payer a line that Obama avoided. Many of the controversial provisions of the actual bill have been proposed by Republicans over the past several decades.

His putative saving of General Motors and Chrysler was done in a leftist way, by government rather than free market.

Also supported by many Republicans as a matter of national interest. Of course, I'm taking a relative view here recognizing that some would say those same Republicans had shifted to the Left.

Don't know what the centrist view is on killing Bin Laden.

Not sure there is one, the spectrum sort of falls apart here.

And his determination to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 regardless what effect it has on the economy, but simply on the basis of "fairness" is pure leftist.

I think the desire to raise taxes is born more from a matter of need to pay the bills that a punitive effort to soak the rich. The 250K threshold is there precisely because there is concern over economic impact.

What ownership over governance has the GOP not taken or should have taken?[/QUOTE]
By that I meant we would have increased joint ownership over policy rather than simple opposition.

Regulation by unelected agencies is different than regulation by elected representatives. It is not regulation by the will of the people, and often against that will, and by one-sided "experts" who don't seek a "centrist" solution against supposed forces, but dictate with economic results often contrary to intention. These administrative regulatory agencies are philosophical spawns of progressive political philosophy and legislation that have the good intention of ensuring what progressives called "effective liberty" as opposed to the "legal liberty" garanteed by the Constitution. Rather than leaving the function of liberty to individual effort and desire, which would unfairly advantage some over others, the central government would regulate the sphere of liberties by administrative fiat, defining liberty as that which is granted by government, not an unalienable right granted by nature or a creator. Thus all will be allowed an oxymoronic equalized liberty defined and granted by the government creating a narrowed "effective liberty" for all, not just the broad Constitutionaly legal liberty within which some might not be able to achieve at the same level as others. This becomes a new and more powerful force which the individual cannot defend against.

Unelected regulators are still appointed by elected officials and their bias shifts along with the electorate.

I'd note that polls pretty consistently show a majority favoring much government regulation that you'd probably find unappealing.

It is not out of Constitutional bounds for government agencies to inform the public about the dangers of food additives, and leave it up to individuals how to deal with it.

I think they've tried this and the result was that the individual isn't very responsible. When the accumulation of poor individual decisions ultimately weighs on the masses, there is a justification for doing something.

-spence