Change That Doesn't Happen

Obama has abandoned the "windfall profits tax"on oil and gas companies, thank God. It also looks like Obama is putting off raising taxes on anyone in this economy. Again, thank God.

Obama has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to stay. A Bush appointee and a Republican. Huh. I bet the Koskids are howling at that one. Gates is also a proponent of missile defense. Should be interesting to see how that goes.

Hillary voted for the war in Iraq and has been very hawkish in the Senate and she is his pick for Secretary of State.

Obama has picked a former Marine commandant , Gen. Jim Jones, as his national-security adviser. This General is close with John McCain. Obama's National Security team is probably composed of people McCain might have picked.

Obama promised he would get us out of Iraq in 16 months, but is now saying he will listen to his commanders. It will probably take a bit longer and he has benefited from the success of the surge he opposed. Ironic, isn't it? He opposed permanent bases in Iraq, but I'm betting that policy will change as well.

Obama has said he will increase troop levels in Afghanistan, something John McCain would have done as well. When the war there becomes more heated, what will the left say then? Recently he has said we should be tougher on Pakistan. This is hardly a pacifist talking.

This all may make the lefties angry, but the truth is that Bush's foreign policy was never the "wrong" path the left and the media made it out to be. As Obama is about to take the seat of the Presidency, he realizes that.

As NRO points out:

Bush wants U.S. troops to “return on success” in Iraq — so does Obama. Bush supports a buildup in Afghanistan — so does Obama. Bush wants a larger military — so does Obama. Bush has launched raids against al-Qaeda into the tribal areas of Pakistan — Obama wants to do the same. Bush wants to close Guantánamo Bay, but has been bedeviled by the difficult choices inherent in its shuttering — Obama will be, too. Bush has put out diplomatic feelers to Iran, while warning of the unacceptability of its nuclear program — Obama has done the same, although with more of an accent on diplomacy.

What are we to think of this? As conservatives, it is certainly nice to see that Obama may be more intelligent than he is radical, but it may just come down to common sense.

I remember thinking that Clinton governed like a Republican on many things. Which is why the economy did well under him. I thought at the time he just wanted to be liked (and loved apparently) because he would sign things like the Welfare Reform Act (which Republicans had been fighting for years for) because he wanted to play both sides and be a "moderate." But what I think now is that it was being pragmatic. He saw what needed to be done from a Presidential standpoint and not a liberal one. Did Clinton drop the ball on terrorism? Yes. He thought he could ignore the first World Trade Center bombing, the U.S.S. Cole and the embassie bombings. But after 9-11, Obama knows these things cannot be ignored.

So it's not that Obama is trying to moderate or anything like that. He is simply seeing the world as it is, and he is doing the same things Bush did because they were right. It's as simple as that.

It should be interesting to see how the press and the left handle "The One" following in the footsteps of Bush. Will they smear and disrespect Obama too?

Don't count on it.

Now, if he doesn't sign the Freedom of Choice Act or remove the executive pro-life orders that Pres. Bush put into place, I may have to write a few nice things about him. But I'm not counting on it. As moderate as Clinton may have been on a few things, he was completely loyal to the pro-abortion side of the Democratic party. It was the only group on the left that he never let down. I'll be shocked if Obama is any different.