And sometimes they speak equivocally. When deciding which is which, nothing is more useful than guidance from straight-shooter analysts, the kind who don't let their own political preferences determine their judgment.
E.J. Dionne, "No Final Victories
," November 1, 2010: "Much of the post-election analysis will focus on ideology, on whether Obama moved 'too far left' and embraced too much 'big government.' All this will overlook how moderate Obama's program actually is. It will also pretend that an anxiety rooted in legitimate worry about the country's long-term economic future is the result of doctrine rather than experience... The classic middle-ground voter who will swing this election -- moderate, independent, suburban -- has always been suspicious of dogmatic promises that certain big ideas would give birth to a utopian age."
E.J. Dionne, "A New Era for America
," November 5, 2008: "Barack Obama's sweeping electoral victory cannot be dismissed merely as a popular reaction to an economic crisis or as a verdict on an unpopular president ... In choosing Obama and a strongly Democratic Congress, the country put a definitive end to a conservative era ... Since the Nixon era, conservatives have claimed to speak for the 'silent majority.' Obama represents the future majority... [T]he [economic] crisis affords [Obama] an opportunity granted few presidents to reshape the country's assumptions, change the terms of debate and transform our politics."