Now off to read what's on the other side of the link.

Sullivan certainly hasn't sold me on Obama in that piece. I think he has reiterated what many have said all along; Obama is a pragmatic, right of center little c conservative. Hard to refute.

Were it 12 years ago and he was white he could have been a moderate Republican.

With his definition of conservatism...

as the practical engagement with policy and political institutions to adapt modestly and incrementally to social and economic change with the goal of maintaining the coherence and stability of a polity and a culture. It is a philosophy of moderation and balance, constantly alert to the manifold ways in which societies can, over time, lose their equilibrium. It is defined, along Burke's foundational lines, as an opposition to ideological and theological politics in every form. And so it is a perfectly admirable conservative idea to respond to capitalism's modern mercilessness by trying to support, encourage and help the traditional family structure and traditional religious practice. The point is a pragmatic response to contingent events that threaten social coherence. But it is equally conservative to note that a group in society -- openly gay people -- have emerged as a force and are best integrated within an existing institution -- civil marriage -- than by continued ostracism or new institutions like "civil unions" that have not stood the test of time.

President Obama is without a doubt the more conservative of the two mainstream presidential candidates.

Now for the idea of gradualism to maintain stability, there's an argument to be made for a more accelerated response for civil rights, climate change, and a crippling recession.

On almost every front, on almost every issue, in this crisis, Obama is more conservative than Romney. Like Romney, he seeks a long-term debt solution. But unlike Romney, he seeks to do so using all traditional means available without drastically altering the American system. He'll cut spending and raise taxes, while Romney will only do the former, even as tax revenues are at 60 year lows. Obama will first attempt to bend the curve on healthcare costs before turning Medicare into a premium support system. Romney would reverse those priorities and end Medicare as it has been known for decades. The first is a more conservative option, the latter - doubling down on what has gone wrong these past thirty years and gutting one of the most popular entitlements around - is far more radical.

On the financial sector, Obama has sought a modest re-regulation after the chaos of 2008. Romney seeks to do nothing to prevent the next financial panic, and wants to roll back what few rules have been re-imposed.

It's things like these that really scare me.

Paul Ryan's radical budget was termed "social engineering" by Gingrich, then we have a whole string of Disneyesque characters calling themselves "conservatives" from Rush Limbaugh to Ann Coulter to Michelle Bachmann etcetra - whose thinly veiled objective is to make themselves a lot of money and the h*ll with the rest of the world.

The spending binge republicans and Mitt is touting along the campaign trail never happened and that is accounting for the stimulus.

If we can get the money out of politics, we may yet see a progressive president. That said, Obama's pragmatism and long term vision are proving very successful on many fronts and I admire him for it. The true winds of change must come from the people. With that, we can accomplish anything.