Over at Common Sense Political Thought, I decided to have a little fun with Barack Obama's recent flurry of flip-flops by offering up the question, What will be Obama's Next Flip-Flop?
We’ve seen the man lie change his mind about gun control, NAFTA, campaign financing and FISA. What will be next? And how long does it take the Obama droolers before they realize they’ve been had?
Apparently, members of the MSM detect that flip-flopping on every issue in the campaign is bad for a candidate, so they need to do a little damage control. How else to characterize this load of manure--er, story from the Washington Post?
In Campaign, One Man's Pragmatism Is Another's Flip-Flopping
Last February, in the heat of the Democratic primary campaign, Sen. Barack Obama proclaimed himself "proud to stand" with Sens. Christopher J. Dodd, Russell Feingold and "a grass-roots movement of Americans" in opposition to President Bush's demand to offer telecommunications companies legal amnesty for assisting in federal warrantless wiretapping.
This week, Dodd (D-Conn.), Feingold (D-Wis.) and those same grass roots were still manning the barricades when the Senate revisited legislation governing surveillance of terrorism suspects. But the senator from Illinois was not, instead backing a new compromise that offers some additional limitations on spying but effectively grants the legal protections to phone companies he opposed just four months ago.
The switch is not without precedent. On a variety of issues, including gun control and campaign finance regulation, the presumptive Democratic nominee has shown himself willing to settle for incremental changes in the face of political reality rather than to hold out for the sweeping and uncompromising positions he initially stakes out.
Emphasis mine.
Can we get serious here? "Willing to settle for incremental changes"? When have we heard any Republican compromise described as "nuanced" or "pragmatic"? Indeed, the only time Republicans can get press like this is when they become Democrats.
There's nothing "nuanced" about Obama's approach to NAFTA, FISA, campaign finance, or gun control. Obama has made clear statements about each of these things then deliberately stated the opposite--also known as lying--when he thought those positions were less than palatable.
But don't expect the liberals who support Obama to care how much he flip-flops. They bought this guy ($25! He'll take my calls directly!) and now they get to tell us how much better his "nuance" is for the country.
|