Posted on 05/23/2009 4:29:39 PM PDT by reaganaut1
“Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part,” President Obama declared last week in the soaring rotunda of the National Archives, a snippet of self-defense tucked into a far-reaching philosophical address on terrorism and the rule of law. “They should look at the record.”
Mr. Obama was speaking, in particular, of his decision to revive George W. Bush’s practice of trying terrorism suspects in military commissions. True, Mr. Obama said, he fought Mr. Bush on the commissions. But, he went on, he had always said that with reforms he would support them. With “meaningful due process” — limiting hearsay evidence, giving suspects greater latitude in picking their lawyers — the president asserted, “my administration is bringing our commissions in line with the rule of law.” In short, Mr. Obama argued, what seemed like a reversal wasn’t a reversal at all.
It was the kind of careful, nuanced argument that is a hallmark of Mr. Obama’s communications style — a methodical laying-out of the facts by a president who seems convinced that if he simply explains himself to the American people, they will surely understand his position and forgive him for changing, or seeming to change, his mind.
It is a tactic Mr. Obama has employed repeatedly as president, as he has recalibrated his approach to positions on any number of issues.
...
On all these fronts, Mr. Obama and his aides have offered detailed explanations of the factors that shape his decision-making. So far, the public seems on board. But in a sound-bite culture, there are limits to how much nuance the public can absorb.
And that raises a question: at what point is President Thinker in danger of being perceived as President Flip-Flop?
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Since so many of his policies are destructive, I don't mind his flip-flops, but it would be nice if he did not lie about them.
“...at what point is President Thinker in danger of being perceived as President Flip-Flop??”
More to the point, President Horse Flop.
Yeah dude that might work for the confused masses but I as a thinking person think you are full of BS!
“So far, the public seems on board.”
(And I’m sure the Times will do it’s level best in making sure they stay there.)
Naturally, being the New York Times, they didn’t observe Obama’s historical-sized flip flops during his campaign.
Even the pro-Communist, pro-Al-Queda New York Times reporters are starting to grow weary of Obama’s ‘nuance’ read flip-flops.
The flip-flops will end when all of 44's teleprompters have been recalibrated.
” A central premise of his campaign was his pledge to restore America’s moral standing in the world by undoing the anti-terrorism policies of his predecessor, Mr. Bush.”
Ms Gay Stolberg left out Muslim in front of world...
And if Obama is against anti terror-doesn’t that make him pro terror ?
Which is apparently a plus at the NYT.
How about “President Impulsive?”
Or “Loose Cannon?”
Or just plain “Disorganized?”
A columnist for the London Telegraph has taken to referring to President Obama as "President Pantywaist".
Has a certain nuance, has it not?
Yes, I’ve seen Pantywaist in the Telegraph. I like it.
I bet never before has a president picked up so many new names in his first 100 days. He should be thrilled.
I always thought a flip-flop was when a politician offers different positions to an issue depending on the audience. He or she would say one thing on Monday speaking before a union membership, and another thing on Tuesday when speaking at a chamber of commerce.
Changing from one position to another isn’t a ‘flip-flop.’ It’s a ‘flip.’
When did the figure of speech change? Does it have any meaning, anymore?
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.