And so, just like with Clinton, we've got a Democrat acting like a Republican, and the Republicans redefining these policies as "liberal." The center moves ever rightward.

Todays post, "The Big Lie II" is more of the same.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_…

"If a black Republican president..." That's gotta be the biggest "if" in the history of ifs.

If there was an African-American Republican President, he'd be called a traitor to his race by the left.

Let's be honest here. Bush initiated both the bank and auto bailouts and saw a lot of pushback from his own party, along with his other spending increases. The Tea Party was born in the Bush presidency. That emerging grass roots movement was not happy with him either and 2006's and 2008's Republican losses were not only a matter of the left being pissed off about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus a failing economy, but with the right's dissatisfaction with a president who had greatly increased government spending. You could turn this on Sullivan and do the same thing, selectively choosing moderate/left-leaning policies by Bush and say that if Clinton had done the prescription drug bill and increased spending on healthcare and education, that Democrats would have applauded him. A few policies don't make a whole presidency, though.

If any president, Democrat or Republican, had instituted comprehensive healthcare reform as Obama has, or supported Cap & Trade, or passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill, many right-leaning moderates and independents along with most Republicans would be up in arms.

The big lie is that any of this is new. It's all politics as usual. You play not only the policies but against the man who is on the other team, so to speak. It's probably not best for the country overall, but it's not something unique to Republicans or Democrats and it's been going on since the country was founded.