I'm not making the case for McCain, because he is simply only less-bad than Obama...
But liberals here actually like this turd, so defend these flip flops. They are not only flip flops, but some of them change the entire core of his message and focus as a candidate:
Campaign finance
Last month he announced that he would be rejecting public financing for his campaign, and would instead rely on private donations.
The McCain camp accused Mr Obama of "going back on his word", although Mr Obama insisted that he had never made a promise to stay in the public finance system.
Surveillance programme
Mr Obama also raised eyebrows when he announced that he would not be opposing a bill going through Congress giving immunity to telephone companies involved in the Bush administration's controversial warrantless wiretap programme.
His decision angered many of his supporters on the left, who accused him of going back on his 2007 pledge "to support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies".
Gun control
When the Supreme Court decided to overturn Washington DC's handgun ban, Mr Obama declared that the ruling "provide[d] much-needed guidance", despite having previously argued (in a written answer that he says was drafted by an aide and which he had not approved) that the ban was constitutional.
Iraq
Withdrawing troops from Iraq has long been one of the central planks of Mr Obama's campaign, and was something that set him apart from other Democratic candidates running for the party's presidential nomination.
Since his campaign began, however, conditions in Iraq have changed, violence has reduced, and some commentators have suggested that Mr Obama's position is out of date.
Mr Obama himself has announced that he plans to visit Iraq, where he will make "a thorough assessment" which could lead him to "refine" his policy.
Some critics have seized on this as an indication that Mr Obama is laying the groundwork for a change in position.
Free trade
Mr Obama recently hinted to Fortune magazine that his strong anti-free trade rhetoric during the primaries may not be reflected in his actual trade policy should he become president.
His remarks are a neat summation of the pressures and temptations that lead politicians to shift their positions during the process of running for office.
"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he said.
"Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself."
But liberals here actually like this turd, so defend these flip flops. They are not only flip flops, but some of them change the entire core of his message and focus as a candidate:
Campaign finance
Last month he announced that he would be rejecting public financing for his campaign, and would instead rely on private donations.
The McCain camp accused Mr Obama of "going back on his word", although Mr Obama insisted that he had never made a promise to stay in the public finance system.
Surveillance programme
Mr Obama also raised eyebrows when he announced that he would not be opposing a bill going through Congress giving immunity to telephone companies involved in the Bush administration's controversial warrantless wiretap programme.
His decision angered many of his supporters on the left, who accused him of going back on his 2007 pledge "to support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies".
Gun control
When the Supreme Court decided to overturn Washington DC's handgun ban, Mr Obama declared that the ruling "provide[d] much-needed guidance", despite having previously argued (in a written answer that he says was drafted by an aide and which he had not approved) that the ban was constitutional.
Iraq
Withdrawing troops from Iraq has long been one of the central planks of Mr Obama's campaign, and was something that set him apart from other Democratic candidates running for the party's presidential nomination.
Since his campaign began, however, conditions in Iraq have changed, violence has reduced, and some commentators have suggested that Mr Obama's position is out of date.
Mr Obama himself has announced that he plans to visit Iraq, where he will make "a thorough assessment" which could lead him to "refine" his policy.
Some critics have seized on this as an indication that Mr Obama is laying the groundwork for a change in position.
Free trade
Mr Obama recently hinted to Fortune magazine that his strong anti-free trade rhetoric during the primaries may not be reflected in his actual trade policy should he become president.
His remarks are a neat summation of the pressures and temptations that lead politicians to shift their positions during the process of running for office.
"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he said.
"Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself."
Posts
5 comments:
i probably shouldn't even bother responding to something that begins by referring to the presumptive democratic nominee as a "turd." it simply shows your pathetic lack of class. clearly ad hominem attacks are the rule on "your side."
that said, i can't help myself. you and lindsey graham and all the others claim obama has flip-flopped on campaign finance. you all cite obama's answer to a questionnaire in 2007 but you fail to include the qualification stated in that exact answer that he would use public financing if it could be worked out with his republican opponent and included a comprehensive solution including dealing with 527s. although attempts were made to do this, an agreement was not reached. is it obama's fault or mccain's? or neither. or does mccain just want to make an issue of this because he has few other options and he wants to take the so-called liberal media's attention away from the fact that he is illegally overspending campaign funds himself.
on gun control, apparently obama, a constitutional law expert, recognizes that even though he previously believed that the ban was constitutional, the scotus is actually the final arbiter of what is and what isn't constitutional, and that logically speaking, that the scotus decision does indeed provide guidance as to the meaning of the second amendment. what a concept!
obama has not changed his position on strategic withdrawal from iraq despite what the mccain camp and the so-called liberal media would like you to believe. the strategy was and continues to be to withdraw combat troops from iraq as soon as possible. how and when this done are tactics that are necessarily assessed and advised by the military leaders. there is no flip-flop here.
i'm not really sufficiently informed on free trade so unlike others here, i won't comment on something i'm not informed about.
but if you want to talk about flip-flops, simply google "mccain flip-flop". he makes obama appear extremely stubborn.
First, what is the problem with the 527's for Obama?
Liberal 524's outspend conservative 527's TWO to ONE...
Obama has always said he would take troops out ASAP, but anyone who has a clue knows he won't...and if things keep going well you will see him soften his position even further...
if things are going well, why wouldn't he pull the troops out as he has always said and still says?
"anyone who has a clue knows he won't". based on what? why wouldn't he?
"the scotus is actually the final arbiter of what is and what isn't constitutional"
Ugh.
Obama does believe this. In other words, he thinks the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, but what judges say it means. This is legal positivism, not originalism. Judges used to apply principles to concrete cases; Obama thinks the judges are free to make up Constitutional principles to begin with.
"he thinks the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, but what judges say it means." umm, yeah! otherwise why does the constitution have an article 3? do you believe that judicial review is bullshit?
"Obama thinks the judges are free to make up Constitutional principles to begin with."
on what basis do you make this claim?
Post a Comment