Posted on 07/07/2008 11:40:58 AM PDT by Captain McAllister
The Radical Waffling True-Believing Flip-Flopping Obama 2008-07-07
The Radical, Waffling, True-Believing, Flip-Flopping Obama
In 2004, by far the most damaging aspect of Senator John Kerry’s failed presidential campaign was his inability to craft a consistent message. At their national convention, Republicans enthusiastically clapped flip-flops together when the charge was leveled against the Democrat nominee for president.
Senator Barack Obama could be facing a problem of similar, if not greater magnitude. He has thus far waffled on a number of issues, including but not limited to:
1. Taking union money—was against, now for;
2. Public financing—was for, now against;
3. Lifting the Cuba embargo—was for, now against;
4. Cracking down on illegal immigrant employers—was against, now for;
5. Telecom immunity in the FISA—was against, now for;
6. D.C. gun ban—was for, now against;
7. Taking Big Oil money—says he’s against, but takes money from Big Oil execs;
8. NAFTA—was against, now for; and
9. Death penalty—was against, now for.
Some of these shifts were matters of expediency, as with the three items on campaign finance. The rest, however, are the difference between night and day, between the primary season and the general election, and between radical and moderate.
And the rationale is eminently pragmatic in nature: Conventional wisdom holds that Democrat candidates, in order to secure both the nomination and the presidency, ought to run to the political left during primaries and to the center during the general election. So, in truth, Mr. Obama’s and Mr. Kerry’s moves on the issues were and are really a part of a general political strategy, and one that many voters will be familiar with and, so the candidates hope, will be forgiven.
In other words, a political moderate cannot win the Democrat nomination, and a liberal Democrat cannot win the general election. All of which tells us nothing about how these candidates will govern once in office.
One barometer to use would be the Clinton administration, which governed to the left from 1993-94 and to the center from 1995-2000 after the Democrats lost Congress. If that is the proper metric, then how a Democrat president would govern in office is dependent upon the composition of Congress.
So which Barack Obama will govern if elected?
With Democrats in solid control of Congress, it will be Obama the Radical. The capital gains tax increasing, windfall profits taxing, carbon emission capping, universal health care implementing, free trade abolishing, housing entitlement creating, Treasury bankrupting, Big Government Radical.
And the triangulation, positioning, and waffling now are merely means to enacting that radical agenda.
ALG Perspective: Barack Obama is the worst kind of radical: He will lie about what his true intentions really are, leaving the American people to wonder what he will do exactly. But the American people should really just go by what his platform was during the primary season, because that was the true Barack Obama: the Radical.
Obama: longtime champion of campaign finance reform - Ha Ha Ha. What a liar.
“Moreover, when Obama’s ideals clash with reality, he has been able to find compromises that don’t put him at a political disadvantage. For instance, no Democrat can win the general election while adhering to the public financing system if the Republican nominee doesn’t do the same. Clinton and John Edwards have simply conceded that the public financing system is dead and are ignoring fund-raising restrictions that would be triggered if either ends up playing within the public financing scheme. Facing the same situation, Obama—a longtime champion of campaign finance reform in general and public financing in particular—asked the Federal Election Commission if he could raise the potentially restricted money now (the world as it is) but then give it back if he wins the nomination and convinces his Republican opponent to stick with public financing (the world as we would like it to be).”
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a74fca23-f6ac-4736-9c78-f4163d4f25c7&p=8
The New Republic
The Agitator
by Ryan Lizza
Barack Obama’s unlikely political education.
Post Date Monday, March 19, 2007
I guess if people vote for him, “The screwing they want is the screwing they will get.”
forgot late-term abortions
The MSM learned its lesson on Kerry. Ignore the message of the annointed candidate, the candidate IS the message.
Kerry had the personality of a dead dog. So it was hard to deflect away from the substance of his campaign. Obamania is it’s own message; it’s a cult. Who cares what the substance of the message is? Just wet your pants and be happy that he’s here to save us from ourselves.
"There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience. This is the change he promised , This reality of his so called change, shows him to be a typical lying liberal politician."
"You can be sure there will never be any clear answers from Obama on any critical issue. He is quite comfortable taking positions that contradict each other. Sadly, his inconsistent and dishonest positions are perfectly acceptable to his Obamabot cult members, who blindly follow him."
Instead of the change candidate, Hussein ObamaMessiaHamas, will be known as the Ooops Uh Flip-Flop Candidate, who couldn't tell the truth!
Quit your whining about my Flip Flops, Waffling and Lies, you God Loving, Gun owning and Bitter White Racist Patriots!
Damn Pajama Media. They won’t let me get by with my lies and flip flopping.
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.