Advertisement
Please refrain from personal attack, they're simply words spoken from a place of truth in myself.
A letter I wrote to the Obama campaign...
To Whom it May Concern:
i have been a Barack Obama supporter since his speech at the 2004 meeting of the dnc; my hopes became a reality when i discovered the good senator from Illinois would be seeking the Democratic nomination. i have been elated to be part of the political process both as an individual financial contributor and organizer here in the loathsomely "red" state of West Virginia. it was my hope that Barack Obama would not only withstand the white-washing (and yes, I do mean racially) and political gerrymandering required of a citizenry educated only by seconds-long sound bytes, yet would emerge a stronger, more capable candidate as a result.
this has not happened.
i am deeply saddened by the campaign's recent move to opt out of public campaign financing. the campaign's arguments are convincing, and the ends do, at least on first hearing, seem to justify the means. but this is no longer my campaign--our campaign. it's evolved into something different and i am deeply disappointed. i feel hypocritical in some way, though i'm not sure why. i feel as though something is lost. former president Bill Clinton once referred to the Obama campaign as a "fairytale." something about his statement is beginning to sound truth-like.
He has steadily declined in his ability to project his oft' claimed deep values regarding average folk and the grass-roots "spirit" that seemed to set him apart has been parsed into polling numbers, demographics, and suspect interests. you are manufacturing a candidate from the same playbook as the Rnc, while changing only the political lexicon from which the dnc frames its seemingly substantive arguments.
yes, i know our country continues to be deeply racist; i am originally from West Virginia and am well-aware of the effects racism continues to have on the American psyche. yes, i understand that a certain white-washing is inevitable. (i mean, come on, you're even white-washing Michelle! i don't know many folks from the south side of Chicago, or anywhere for that matter, who dress like Jackie O.) yes, i know that you cannot openly advocate for the rights of GLBT-identified folks like myself (at least on the stump; i have read all the published literature) without polarizing the campaign. yes, i know you cannot, from the voice of a critical dissident, articulate important challenges regarding race and the plight of the country's prison industrial complex. yes, i know, i know, i know. but are you kidding me? You're changing the product and it is, unfortunately, one i am having a harder time supporting.
i believe that Barack will be the next president. from all accounts, this Democratic party will stop at nothing to trample the Rnc spin machine. with its own tricks of the trade, i believe that the party will manufacture and sell a palpable candidate in Barack Obama. i believed in "yes WE can" yet, i wonder if WE continues to mean the poor, oppressed, and marginalized folks for whom Barack began his career in public service. the Barack Obama i see and hear now is not the same man who inspired me to believe in the possibility of democracy again. it is not the same voice i heard in both of his autobiographies. it's not the voice i heard in the "blueprint for change." rather, it is a more fragmented figment of what once was a prophetic voice for deep and substantive change. as a result, at least for now, i will no longer be casting my vote for Barack in the general election.
i hope i am surprised.
who knows? i only know that I am no longer certain of anything.
regretful in west virginia
(sent Saturday, June 21)
A letter I wrote to the Obama campaign...
To Whom it May Concern:
i have been a Barack Obama supporter since his speech at the 2004 meeting of the dnc; my hopes became a reality when i discovered the good senator from Illinois would be seeking the Democratic nomination. i have been elated to be part of the political process both as an individual financial contributor and organizer here in the loathsomely "red" state of West Virginia. it was my hope that Barack Obama would not only withstand the white-washing (and yes, I do mean racially) and political gerrymandering required of a citizenry educated only by seconds-long sound bytes, yet would emerge a stronger, more capable candidate as a result.
this has not happened.
i am deeply saddened by the campaign's recent move to opt out of public campaign financing. the campaign's arguments are convincing, and the ends do, at least on first hearing, seem to justify the means. but this is no longer my campaign--our campaign. it's evolved into something different and i am deeply disappointed. i feel hypocritical in some way, though i'm not sure why. i feel as though something is lost. former president Bill Clinton once referred to the Obama campaign as a "fairytale." something about his statement is beginning to sound truth-like.
He has steadily declined in his ability to project his oft' claimed deep values regarding average folk and the grass-roots "spirit" that seemed to set him apart has been parsed into polling numbers, demographics, and suspect interests. you are manufacturing a candidate from the same playbook as the Rnc, while changing only the political lexicon from which the dnc frames its seemingly substantive arguments.
yes, i know our country continues to be deeply racist; i am originally from West Virginia and am well-aware of the effects racism continues to have on the American psyche. yes, i understand that a certain white-washing is inevitable. (i mean, come on, you're even white-washing Michelle! i don't know many folks from the south side of Chicago, or anywhere for that matter, who dress like Jackie O.) yes, i know that you cannot openly advocate for the rights of GLBT-identified folks like myself (at least on the stump; i have read all the published literature) without polarizing the campaign. yes, i know you cannot, from the voice of a critical dissident, articulate important challenges regarding race and the plight of the country's prison industrial complex. yes, i know, i know, i know. but are you kidding me? You're changing the product and it is, unfortunately, one i am having a harder time supporting.
i believe that Barack will be the next president. from all accounts, this Democratic party will stop at nothing to trample the Rnc spin machine. with its own tricks of the trade, i believe that the party will manufacture and sell a palpable candidate in Barack Obama. i believed in "yes WE can" yet, i wonder if WE continues to mean the poor, oppressed, and marginalized folks for whom Barack began his career in public service. the Barack Obama i see and hear now is not the same man who inspired me to believe in the possibility of democracy again. it is not the same voice i heard in both of his autobiographies. it's not the voice i heard in the "blueprint for change." rather, it is a more fragmented figment of what once was a prophetic voice for deep and substantive change. as a result, at least for now, i will no longer be casting my vote for Barack in the general election.
i hope i am surprised.
who knows? i only know that I am no longer certain of anything.
regretful in west virginia
(sent Saturday, June 21)
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Wed, July 9, 2008 - 2:36 AMi appreciate your courage posting something like that in a room like this... on tribe.
I have several qualms about obama, especially on the populist side. For instance, despite his platform planks talking about really listening to scientists to solve problems, hes obviously clueless about the pros and cons of different types of energy. I got tossed off of mybo for trying to bring geothermal power to his attention.
Which pretty much lets me know that hes not listening, no matter what the platform says.
Theres a serious gap between his promises and his manifested actions.
However, i do not feel that the campaign finance issue is at all flip flopping. I think its clear that otherwise hed be facing a broken system
designed by corporatists so that they can continue to buy elections. If he had done it on principle and lost, where would we be?
My position on obama becomes more and more nuanced the more i look into it. Its very clear that hes much better a choice than mccain.
But Kucinich, Gravel, or Nader would be much better choices.
Still, over all, i have to support him and hope that when all is said and done, he will work to make good on his promises and ideas.
Good luck with letters to the campaign. All they ever do is automated responses. Even calling them just earns an automated email response. I knew this already, but i did hope for something better. Its always sad to see other people finding out the obvious.
They don't listen. Politicians are surrounded by infiltrators who keep the truth from them.
They are manipulated and lied to and kept away from knowledge and spoon fed lies and propaganda. Lobbyists are only one part of the problem.
You are obviously a deep thinker and i hope that you will join me on my pro obama (but not afraid to disagree with him) site.
The idea is to get enough amplification through numbers to actually force him to listen to us.
An open source think tank; we have to be sure that what we are saying is worth forcing him to listen to it.
mytalktoday.com/forum/forum.php
mytalktoday.com/forum/index.php
-
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Wed, July 9, 2008 - 7:06 PMyou get it...that is cool
i appreciate your thoughtful and intelligent reply and i, too, will support barack if it comes down it, but if nader makes it on the ballot in california i cannot say that i wouldn't vote for him, outta principle.
i wouldn't have had such a difficult time with the public financing issue, EXCEPT that HE used it as a challenge to McCain. McCain called his bluff, and now barack looks like a tool. But a lot of folks don't remember that the option to accept the public financing of campaigns was a challenge proffered by the junior senator from Illinois.
and yes, it has been argued that the system is broken and that those whatever kind of groups that sunk Kerry's campaign will raise more money and do the same to barack...yet...barack has broken every major fundraising record in the history of campaigns through little donations, like the ones we all made. was there really an extant fear that we would all the sudden be disadvantaged for accepting the same amount of public cash as the republican competitor, or is this just politics as usual?
i don't know...barack is the DNC's bitch now, so far as i can discern, and I am wholly disheartened and am sad to have been such an ardent supporter of his for so long...
i love that you recognize the "gap between his promised and his manifested actions." well-said, brother.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Wed, July 9, 2008 - 8:10 AMWhat did you expect? He's a democrat..this the party that voted for the war and when we gave them control of congress, they gave bush MORE money.
Down with the duopoly.
VOTE NADER -
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Wed, July 9, 2008 - 7:08 PMyou, too, are speaking truth...right on
I probably will vote for nader if he's on the ballot in california, unless there's a chance cali could go red, at which point i'd be casting my vote for the DNC's whipping boy. -
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Wed, July 9, 2008 - 9:01 PMI got a laugh about Obama the other day. he was doing the classic photo op in Iowa during the floods. He got a shovel, filled a sandbag or 2 and had his picture snapped a few times. What was funny was that he obviously had no idea how to use a shovel, he didn;t even know how to hold it. he looked so out of place. Bush may be an idiot, but he almost looks like he really worked on a ranch once upon a time. -
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Wed, July 9, 2008 - 9:35 PMyou get it...that is cool
i appreciate your thoughtful and intelligent reply and i, too, will support barack if it comes down it, but if nader makes it on the ballot in california i cannot say that i wouldn't vote for him, outta principle.
--------
i am in california also. Depending on the polls. But yeah, voting for nader isn't a bad idea where it won't hurt obama.
--------------
i wouldn't have had such a difficult time with the public financing issue, EXCEPT that HE used it as a challenge to McCain. McCain called his bluff, and now barack looks like a tool.
---------
Yes, clearly obama didn't grasp that particular game of poker.
-----------
But a lot of folks don't remember that the option to accept the public financing of campaigns was a challenge proffered by the junior senator from Illinois.
-------------
I remember, and, i remember even then thinking he was being stupid, and wishing for that reason alone that i could call him up and
give him some sound advice.
-----------
and yes, it has been argued that the system is broken and that those whatever kind of groups that sunk Kerry's campaign will raise more money and do the same to barack...yet...barack has broken every major fundraising record in the history of campaigns through little donations, like the ones we all made. was there really an extant fear that we would all the sudden be disadvantaged for accepting the same amount of public cash as the republican competitor, or is this just politics as usual?
---------
I think you are missing the point. The real fight here is between corporate America and WE the PEOPLE. and THEY have more money than we do. Republicanism is by definition an orwellian agreement between luxocrats, and ignorant and uneducated, easily manipulated dupes. Wehn 527s are factored in, playing by the public financing standard just means that the loopholes would be taylor made for
mccain and that thus mccain would end up outspending obama via surrogates 5 or 10 to 1.
-----------
------------
i don't know...barack is the DNC's bitch now, so far as i can discern, and I am wholly disheartened and am sad to have been such an ardent supporter of his for so long...
-----------
I am a pragmatic realist and i never built up a hyped version of him. Buyers remorse is easy to come by if you thought you were getting more than you actually got in the deal. The raw truth is still that obama is a visionary and brilliant senator, and that hes the best choice
between obama and mccain. And that Dennis Kucinich makes obama look like a two dimensional and ignorant hick.
------------
i love that you recognize the "gap between his promised and his manifested actions." well-said, brother.
----------
Everybody has a devil inside, a shadow, their bad side. Obamas is bigger than most peoples just as his good side is bigger than most peoples. Hes got great ideas which it would be nice to see him implement. I can either be a bitch about it, and do no right action, or,
i can create that open source think tank in preparation for when he makes good on his promises or fails to.
The funny thing about right action versus bitching is that the right action doesn't change no matter what obama does or does not do.
:) -
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Thu, July 10, 2008 - 8:00 AMMy prediction is that the left will throw Obama under the bus and the center and right will not trust him enough to vote for him. We will all be back here next year complaining about the latest Iran strike and losses of liberty that come with the Mccain presidency. Its sad really. I understand that he is trying to bring independents and right wingers to the table but I think he has really blown it by not waiting until he was safely in the whitehouse. -
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Thu, July 10, 2008 - 8:01 AMBy him I mean Obama. -
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Thu, July 10, 2008 - 8:10 PMwell, yeah dragon, the gist of what you are saying is pretty true. His shift towards the right is pretty much throwing his base
under the bus, and its going to lag his contributions and it makes him seem like just the latest jerk to play on peoples hopes and emotions.
On the other hand, making a prediction for a john Mccain win seems out of order to me. But then i was looking at polling data which showed that the gap between mccain and obama closed in june to a dead heat, with obama pulling back ahead by a mere 3 percent in july.
I don't know what to say. I'm still rooting for obama. Not because hes perfect, but because hes still the better choice.
This should be an easy win this season... considering the repugnicons trashing themselves so bad.
IF mccain does get in...
Well, obviously theres good and bad to that. The good will be that things will get much worse. And the worse things get, the more
people will realize and be forced to realize that repugnicons are evil. The worse things get, the better off a real change movement is.
The more things hurt, the more people will realize that change is a neccessary thing. Theres a critical mass point there somewhere
and we have almost, but not quite reached it. If we had reached it, you guys would no longer be chatting on tribe and would be over on my BBS. Thats the real comedy for me. I have the solutions and i have the answers and i have the open source think tank. You and everybody else wasting their time bickering with trolls isn't getting any problems solved, and it isn't helping with the change. Writing letters to the obama campaign isn't going to accomplish anything either. People apparently have to feel the pain pretty deep before they realize that they need to change what they are doing about it.
Tribe is a perfect example of nearly all of that energy being wasted. Theres not enough organization, and theres no focus on problem solving process. Theres chatting, whining, arguing, and all sorts of other things going on, but not problem solving process.
Right now is the same as it ever was. Wether or not obama wins it will be the same as it ever was. Change will not come from elected
politicians, it can only come from lucid groundswell grassroots movements. Thats the big problem. As long as people look to obama to be a savior, they are just being stupid cheerleaders in a cult of personality. (And even stupider if that energy goes towards mccain.)
No matter what happens with obama, we are still in the same pickle. Lawyers don't know how to solve problems, just how to make compelling arguments.
Just how to appeal to juries. Even if those juries are the entire USA population. Of mostly ignorant and propaganda spoon fed pov warriors.
Some cases are chronic and can't be helped. Ronnie, Cliff, Brent, Andrew... Etc... Evil stupid jerks who will never give the world anything other than troll crap. The sad thing is that you guys are better than that, but you don't yet get it. Your talking about it. Your feeling the burn
as yet another lawyer with no clue how to solve real world problems demonstrates that hes just working the crowd. And yeah, when he does that and it becomes transparent, if you were counting on HIM to make the change, then yeah, its going to feel like betrayal and its going to feel like getting duped. But maybe you and most dems are not and were not listening closely enough when obama kept saying
that the change was going to have to come from US.
Hes a politician. Hes doing what he thinks is smartest to get elected. It turns out that from my vantage point, his game of chess is two dimensional and i can see very clearly that hes shooting himself in the azz.
And maybe you and others can see that also.
The big question is, when did you ever start thinking that he was anything more than a lawyer and a politician? Did he ever claim to be anything more than a lawyer or a politician? Whos really fooling who?
Until you pick up the torches of 24 platform planks and start running with them; if and when obama fails, you will have nobody to blame,
in truth, but yourselves.
HOPE is a curious and dangerous mistress. Wanting her and having her and wanting to have her can lead people to all sorts of curious self delusions. Thinking obama was going to solve any of these problems in a real way? Come on. did he fool you, or did you fool yourself?
Its time to wake up.
Its time to support obama, not by cheerleading his fool azz on, but by forming the grassroots open source think tank that actually does solve these problems in a real way. Wether or not he gets in is almost irrelevant. Honestly, from my perspective, for me personally, its almost better if he looses. Because then, 4 years from now, people will be a lot more likely to actually listen to me. When it hurts as bad as it does not and people still don't listen, thats sad. Maybe it needs to hurt a lot more.
The more it hurts, the more chance real change will have. The more it hurts, the more likely you guys will be to get busy solving the problems rather than just complaining about them.
It is and always was up to us.
obama is just a politician; a lawyer. Not an energy scientist. Not a sociologist. Not a Civil Engineer. Not an Educator. Not A doctor.
mytalktoday.com/forum/forum.php
mytalktoday.com/forum/index.php
-
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Fri, July 11, 2008 - 3:53 PMObama is doing whatever it takes to get him into office. Bill Clinton had advised Al Gore against running on an openly anti-gun platform because it would cost him his swing vote, and sure enough he lost by a tiny fraction.
In a race like the presidential election, the mindset is that you have to get elected if you want to carry out your dreams...so mainstreaming is not really lying as far as they are concerned.
If you want to know a candidate, stop listening to them the minute they announce their candidacy, and begin studying what they did up to that point. People can say all kinda fancy five-dollar words, but what they have really been doing all along is what they will continue to do. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Fri, July 11, 2008 - 4:19 PMbut what they have really been doing all along is what they will continue to do.
------------
yeah, thats how i always do it. I look up their voting records and such.
In that, obamas got a pretty good voting record. Many of those votes are more nuanced than they appear. Understanding the bills themselves
is a whole other headache. People on both sides of the aisle like to name bills the opposite of what they really are, or have a good
underlying premise and just aweful follow thru; usually designed to flip that good premise on its head so that the bill is just another way to exploit some situation for profit.
-
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Fri, July 11, 2008 - 6:02 PMBasically put "flip-flopping,"is as old as politics. The only difference is how far would the claim detrimentally sticks with each candidate and when... -
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Sat, July 12, 2008 - 10:45 AM"In that, obamas got a pretty good voting record." says Prom
Actually he has a scary record. he has proven to be pro-abortion, anti-gun, and frequently votes PRESENT on hot button issues so he doesn;t have to take a stand or the heat that goes with it.
Also, Obama has never served a day in uniform. Something I prefer in a commander in chief. I never liked that Clinton had been a pure academic, on the plus side he was loathe to send troops into combat the same combat he avoided.
I just can't get fired up about Obama. He is too liberal for my tastes. -
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Sat, July 12, 2008 - 4:02 PMI am liberal, and so Obama's not too liberal for my tastes. I actually wished that he was more liberal....like support gay marriage. -
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Sun, July 13, 2008 - 3:18 AMHe is too liberal for my tastes.
----------
the standard call of the ignorant.
What is "liberal? "
Its just a box used by luxocrat repugnicons to polarize the minds of dupes against real solutions, real science, or good change.
The left VS right false duality is the matrix. Your participation in it is based like most people in your desire for identity and group membership.
Have you ever applied yourself to solve problems in the real world? Does anybody who ever used such terms to denigrate truth?
Calling people names provided by propaganda spin doctors is lame two dimensional thinking. With lame crutches like those, you don't have to do your own thinking. All you have to do is listen to somebody else tell you what to think.
I'm not happy with obama either. But i have real reasons, based on his failure to have good solutions to real world problems. You don't like obama, but not because of who he is or what he stands for, but because he is in the "camp" of the enemy by which you create your self definition.
for the record, its pretty clear hes a centrist. Which is sad, because the center doesn't have solutions, just groupthink and rotting old mental cages.
repugnicons are invested in the problems, and they live and make money by virtue of capitalizing off of the many dupes of the propaganda wars. Obviously, any real solution that comes along will be branded "liberal."
That doesn't mean its true, but it sure is handy. And the fact that you and people like you suck it up and think that it has anything to do with reality just allows the evil people of the world to keep playing you against your own better interests. It allows them to use you as a pawn to ensure that real world problems never get solved, so that they can keep making bucks off of human misery.
Is it time to wake up yet?
-
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Sun, July 13, 2008 - 3:33 AMAll a matter of degree, I guess. Lesser of two evils?
Small time compared to:
* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.
* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
Wait, I’m not done with the last two weeks yet….
* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.
And these come after these other reversals from April and May:
* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
* He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.
* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.
* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
And these are the flip-flops I’ve noticed earlier:
* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
* McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
* McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
* McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.
* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.
* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.
* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
* McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.
* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.
* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
Confronted with the inconsistencies in McCain’s record in March, the senator’s aides told the New York Times that the senator “has evolved rather than switched positions in his 25-year career.” That’s a perfectly sensible spin — when a politician holds one position, and then, for apparently political reasons, decides to embrace the polar opposite position, it’s only natural for his or her aides to say the politician’s position has “evolved.”
But in McCain’s case, the spin is wholly unfulfilling. First, McCain sells himself as a pol who never sways with the wind, and whose willingness to be consistent in the face of pressure is proof of his character. Second, Republicans have spent the last four years or so making policy reversals the single most serious political crime in presidential politics. The dreaded “flip-flop” is, according to the GOP, the latest cardinal sin for someone seeking national office.
And if we’re playing by Republican rules, McCain’s “evolutions” should be a fairly serious problem. I’m beginning to think they might be.
Talk about "change" we can believe in? Yep. McCain is your man! -
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 6:39 AMerik, i stand up and applaud your remarkable post. what research ! clarity of presentation ! thank you. i have copied it so that i can reread it again at leisure..
the saying goes, do a little more than is expected of you and more will be expected of you, so sorry, but i have to ask...can you prepare one for obama ? i, too, see him slithering about, but its all vague and uncomfortable. a list on obama like the list on mccain would help me a lot .. and many other folks as bell.
again. thanks for your post -
-
Re: Obama's change toward the middle = flip-flopping
Tue, July 15, 2008 - 10:04 AMIt wasn't a big deal. It was just cut and paste. I'd do the same for Obama, but I was just responding to this post, hence McCain. If you just Google something like Obama flip flops, you can do the same. The list is a bit shorter, as he hasn't been in politics as long. None the less, some of them worry me. Still, he has my vote, as the lesser of two evils.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-