Posted on 07/02/2008 6:50:38 AM PDT by shrinkermd
We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of "George Bush's third term." Maybe he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's running for it
...Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies"...Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it
...Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical...But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org's attacks in 2007 that he was "General Betray Us." Perhaps he had a late epiphany.
...While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta...the Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for "everybody."
...This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities.
...Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority's ruling to ban the death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats – at least until November.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
He may not know himself. I never found out what John Kerry stood for, except that he was against whatever George W. Bush was for.
The lefties all blather that McCain would be Bush’s third term. Meanwhile is is the same crew who didn’t have a problem with Clinton third term or a Jimmy Carter second term. Go figure.
Is everyone at the WSJ smoking crack???
Carter II is a better characterization. Obama shows all the signs of being an exceptionally weak leader. His constant shifting on positions will only make our allies and enemies even more nuts. Plus he has no track record whatsoever for IMPLEMENTATION of anything. All good intentions, but mo measurable results. He has initiated next to nothing legislatively as well.
Barry O! made an error the other week and called McCain’s run Bush’s FOURTH term.
The man is an idjit.
The media absolutely refused to acknowledge that the Clintons’ co-presidency was giving us an opportunity for an UNCONSTITUTIONAL third term (and Bill said he would sit in on cabinet meetings if asked).
Whatever It Is, I’m Against It (Groucho’s version)
I don’t know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway,
whatever it is, I’m against it!,
no matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.
Your proposition may be good,
but let’s have one thing understood,
whatever it is, I’m against it!,
and even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.
Whenever I have heard that expression (Bush’s third term) applied to the current election, I chime right back that, “it would sure be better than Jimmy Carter’s Second or Leon Trotsky’s First!”
Sort of maps out what sort of verbal challenges they can expect in the next few minutes if they want to rhapsodize about the Fascist Obama.
The Russian’s have learned some things from the Clintons. Who says they don’t like a Democratic government? Of course we should have stayed a Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.