Sunday, July 6th 2008
Change We Can Believe In?
Aren’t we all tired of the same old politicians? The ones for whom the stereotypes are tailormade, the ones who say one thing yet do another…the ones who not only say one thing and do another, but who say one thing to one group of people, and then say the exact opposite to another group? I am. And I know there are plenty of others who share my sentiments, as you yourself probably do.
Barack Obama claims to represent a “new kind of politics,” to transcend the typical maneuvering and pandering of politicians that we have grown accustomed to accept as normal and commonplace. He claims that his candidacy embodies the characteristics of “Hope” and “Change We Can Believe In”.
But the message Obama has staked his candidacy on, and the message he has recently portrayed on policy matters, smack of anything but a “new kind of politics.” He is a consummate flip-flopper, an artful master of shifting his policy positions and statements to suit whatever audience he may be addressing, and also an artful master of covering up his pandering intentions with cleverly devised pseudo-explanations which rationalize his shifts–when it comes to certain associations, comments, or policies which are not entirely endearing to the public. The dramatic flip-flops are posited as nothing more than reasonable adjustments, or when he is feeling his humblest, mistakes from which his superior judgment has rescued him.
Let us have a look at some examples of key shifts Barack Obama has made which will illustrate for you that the presumptive Democratic nominee will truly do whatever it is he feels will benefit him politically.
Trinity United Church of Christ: Obama joined the church which was popular among the African-Americans in his community whom he was seeking to court in his aims for political office in Chicago. He was a member of the church for over 20 years, and the pastor who had mentored him there, married him there, and baptized his children there, Obama described as being “like an old uncle.” When video clips surfaced on the internet showing his pastor virulently denouncing the United States of America and blaming this great nation for bringing 9/11 upon itself, Obama sought to mildly distance himself by simply calling the statements “inflammatory,” hoping to sweep the issue of his radical pastor under the rug.
Soon after, the Reverend Wright spoke to the National Press Club defending his “inflammatory” beliefs and describing more in-depth why he thought they were true. Wright, who was not only a pastor but also a good friend and confidant of Obama, shrugged off the senator’s efforts to distance himself from his former pastor. The former pastor remarked: “Senator Obama is just a politician. He doesn’t mean what he says.” With those words, Reverend Wright expressed what he had known all along about his former parishioner and good friend: Obama is “just a politician”. Obama “doesn’t mean what he says.”
Not long after, Senator Obama sharply condemned the man who had been his spiritual mentor and father figure for two decades, claiming that Reverend Wright’s comments at the National Press Club (asserting that AIDS was invented by the government to keep down blacks and more) did not reflect anything he had ever heard from the man before. He then promptly resigned from the church, in an effort to once and for all bury the controversial church which had once been a political boon but now served only as an obstacle to his election goals.
Another example of Obama’s political pandering is a fundraising speech he gave to a group of limousine liberals in San Francisco in April. He explained his difficulty in winning over small-town Pennsylvania voters as resulting from economically frustrated Americans who “cling to guns or religion.” Of course, the crowd of Bay Area liberal elites present at the fundraiser loved “Doctor” Obama’s diagnosis of the symptoms of those misguided gun-toting, God-loving Americans. Yet those elitist liberal values which disparage the right to bear arms as well as the unequivocal faith of many Americans do not mesh with the majority of this country.
Yet once again, Barack attempts to smooth over the concerns of voters with a recent ad tailored to middle American states which gives off the impression that he believes in exactly the same things that those “bitter” small-town Pennsylvanians and Kansans do. It casts him and the family who brought him up as stunningly “white.” While playing up his “black” side and going to Rev. Wright’s church suited him in Chicago, it now suits him to emphasize his “whiteness” and cast off all the “blackness” which he was once eager to wear on his sleeve. You can see the new commercial below:
Obama’s New Ad, entitled “Country I Love”
Not only is Obama’s skin color chameleon, apparently his policy positions are, too. Lately the Illinois Senator has made some major switches on positions ranging from abortion to gun rights to free trade to the Patriot Act. Obama has voted in favor of partial birth abortion, has defended Chicago’s handgun ban, decried the “evils” of NAFTA, and vowed to deny immunity to the telecommunications companies who, at the government’s request, helped gather information on the phone habits of possible terrorist suspects. More recently, Obama has asserted that he would not permit abortions for the sake of alleviating “mental distress”; he has also claimed that he agrees with the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the handgun ban in Washington, D.C. (which would, by principle, overturn the handgun ban that Obama once said he supported for Chicago). Furthermore, he has in recent days proclaimed that he “believes in free trade” and stated he will grant immunity to the telecom companies after all. Numerous key shifts on numerous key issues.
Let’s also not forget his position on public financing. Once trumpeting his promise to use public funds to run his campaign, he now shuns the idea under the mantle of “representing the democratic will,” claiming that he is better representing the political will of “small donors.” Ditching his old campaign promises which positioned him well as a new kind of candidate, he is now glad to throw off the yoke of the system which would limit his spending. Now that he has cash flowing in as if he were a Saudi oil king, he is happy to forget his former pledge and trudge on ahead, breaking his promise to the American public– all so he can win a political office no matter the cost.
Perhaps Obama’s most striking flip-flop, however, lay with his policy on Iraq. Whereas Obama earned much acclaim from the antiwar left for his consistently strong stance against the Iraq War, he has recently come out stating that he would be open to changing his position on the war after his visit with military commanders in Iraq. After riding to the nomination of his party on the coattails of his allegedly consistent, unequivocal opposition to the War in Iraq and repeated promise of withdrawing all combat troops within 16 months, he suddenly leaves open the door to a massive “change” in his policy on Iraq. Of course, he can easily justify this flop, however, by claiming that his trip to Iraq and discussions with generals changed his mind. And his eager followers will still vote for their winsome candidate.
The only “change we can believe in,” when it comes to Senator Obama, is that he will change anything and everything about himself for the sake of political expediency. That is not the quality of a courageous man, and certainly not the quality I would look for in a prospective Commander-in-Chief.
Obama claims to represent a “new kind of politics”, but all of his recent actions clearly represent an old kind of politics–one filled not with “hope,” but with cynicism.
Do pledged Obama delegates have the obligation to switch votes at the convention if they feel that he no longer represents the sentiments of those that elected him?
The DNC rules not only allow it, they encourage it:
http://www.pledgednotbound.com/
Comment by Tony Kondaks — 7/6/2008 @ 9:23 pm
yawn, you could make just as many arguments for john mccain being a “flip-flopper.” yes, obama is human and a flawed candidate. not as flawed as this blog post though.
Comment by yuri — 7/7/2008 @ 3:59 pm
Personally, I am not going to pay attention to what someone who is in the tank for Obama says. This is great insight on an important issue. Can we trust Obama? What will he say next/what will he do next? What would he do in times of great urgency and national emergency?
It would seem that the answer is that he will do whatever is popular. I want a president who is interested in what is right, not what is popular.
Comment by Concerned Conservative — 7/7/2008 @ 5:55 pm
“Concerned Conservative”, so will you pay attention to what someone who is in the tank for McCain says? Seems just as pointless.
Comment by Mad Hatter — 7/8/2008 @ 4:10 am
Yuri - Not really. John McCain’s opinions have shifted somewhat. But the shifts have been over the course of years, even decades - not months or weeks. They’ve been informed by the voters (immigration) and common sense (tax cuts).
Barack Obama’s shifts, on the other hand, have been attributable to political expediency - FISA, dumping Wright, gun control, Iraq, the death penalty, public financing et cetera. After winning against HRC in the primaries and securing a massive fundraising base, he simply dropped his previous positions in favor of ones yielding a greater benefit to him in November.
The difference between the two candidates and their policy shifts over time is stark. What’s even more remarkable is that Obama has changed so much in the duration of his extremely short career in public service.
Comment by Tommy — 7/12/2008 @ 7:23 pm
What about waterboarding? Didn’t take him too long to reject the Army Field Manual standard for interrogation when he said he supported it. McCain is a fucking joke. You idiots who are in love with him are tools. You’ll support anyone the Republicans run because you have no principles; you just rationalize everything.
Comment by JS Mill — 7/13/2008 @ 9:27 pm
One of the differences between parties is that McCain’s supporters typically aren’t in love with him. They’re looking for a president, not a god.
This year I’m supporting anyone the Republicans run because the history of the 20th century tells me that I should be terrified of an Obama presidency. A supportive press willing to find excuses for his behavior, support from people who have almost cult-like love for him, supporters who try to shout down and disrupt the opposition because of “dangerous ideas,” who seek to have the outgoing political leadership punished with the force of the State…
Comment by Justin! — 7/14/2008 @ 12:08 am
Well, it’s good to know you don’t like Reagan either, then.
Comment by JS Mill — 7/14/2008 @ 3:11 am
And once again, you seem to see presidential politics as a matter of who you do or don’t like.
It would be pretty silly to worry about the dangers of a Reagan presidency right now. It seems like a moot point.
Comment by Justin! — 7/14/2008 @ 10:45 am
JS MIll is dumb.
Comment by Anonymous — 7/14/2008 @ 10:50 pm
Personally I don’t believe in applying the Army Field Manual to the CIA or to the domestic security services of our allies. That McCain has changed his position here is debatable; I think the real question is whether or not he defines waterboarding as torture. Many libertarians and liberals will repeat the mantra that terrorists captured in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve the same constitutional protections as those afforded to common criminals here at home. With all due respect, I strongly disagree. I sleep better at night knowing people like Kalid Sheikh Muhammad are subjected to noise, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding to protect the American people at home and her men and women at arms abroad.
Republicans supporting McCain not having “any principles”: I’ve never heard anything more ridiculous on this Blog (that’s saying something!) We believe in 1) National security 2) Economic renewal 3) Originalist judges 4) Free trade 5) Energy independence and 6) Patriotism and national service. You are confusing yourself with the Obama people, whose sole desire in November is to see their Messiah ascend to the White House to right all wrongs as He sees fit.
Reagan: Conservatives never fawned upon him like the Left does over Obama. Ever. He was criticized for Lebanon, arms reductions, fiscal spending, and a host of other issues.
Comment by Tommy — 7/14/2008 @ 11:20 pm
yuri,
Obama is confused and stuck between the voting block of ‘ foreigners’ and the ‘Establishment’ whites. That is why he flippedy-floppites almost constantly. In part, McCain is under this spell too. Clinton also had this disease. Reagan cared less — that is why he was consistent. La Raza is for Laraza and whomever panders gets their approval — they care less about whitey America and its traditions. So goes for all the other races. There is no ‘inclusionist’ society in history that has worked before, so this is par the course. When Obama or McCain are around crowds of Hispanics they support Hispanic causes. Are you in the first grade or something? Everyone knows this. So why debate the issues, they mean nothing. It is all about race. Political correctness is long gone, its now called political pandering.
Comment by Anonymous — 7/15/2008 @ 11:40 am
Tommy, you’re such an idiot.
“Reagan: Conservatives never fawned upon him like the Left does over Obama. Ever. He was criticized for Lebanon, arms reductions, fiscal spending, and a host of other issues.”
Way to defenestrate your credibility.
Comment by Messiah — 7/15/2008 @ 10:57 pm
Care to say anything more substantial about the matter? I stand behind what I said; Reagan was an excellent president and a phenomenal communicator. But he wasn’t perfect. How about you explain yourself and build some credibility so you don’t rely on name-calling?
Comment by Tommy — 7/15/2008 @ 11:45 pm
Defenestrate?
wow, I thought I was the only one to ever use that word in a sentence. No matter your politics, Messiah, you’re on a cool-list some where for using that word.
Comment by Anonymous — 7/16/2008 @ 12:00 am
Um, where are the bloggers? There’s the tree-sitters, Obama’s trip, VP choices, the CA budget, blah blah. Anybody out there?
Comment by Argh! — 7/23/2008 @ 12:46 pm
I agree with Argh. Come on, Patriot! Get in the game already or bring back Page.
Comment by Rev. Wright — 7/25/2008 @ 11:46 am
Would you say it’s very embarrassing, or only a little embarrassing, that not too long after this post was written Obama’s position on Iraq was essentially endorsed by the Iraqi government and then adopted by John McCain?
Comment by Paul — 7/26/2008 @ 10:28 am
I wouldn’t say it’s embarrassing at all. In fact, what’s more embarrassing is the fact that Obama released his Iraq policy BEFORE he visited the country, flat out rejected Petraeus’s pleading for Obama to dump the 16-month timetable, and that the junior senator from Illinois had enough time to speak to Germans but not to combat veterans of Iraq at Landstuhl or Ramstein. And McCain has never strayed from his policy since 2003 that withdrawal should never be artificial (a la Rumsfeld, Obama etc), only conditions-based.
Comment by Tommy — 7/29/2008 @ 12:41 pm
1. The DOD wouldn’t let Obama visit the vets in Germany with his campaign staff; Senate staff would have been required, but were not present. Note that this is contrary to what the McCain camp claims happened. (Shockingly, you cannot believe everything that gets stated in a campaign ad.)
2. Said McCain: withdrawing from Iraq in 16 months would be “a pretty good timetable”. Either he did not mean that (which is possible, he’s been having a hard time keeping track of his positions recently) or he’s confused about what a “timetable” is.
3. Isn’t one of the (most) relevant “conditions” for withdrawal that most Iraqis would love for us to leave? Including, you know, the elected government?
4. Given the extent to which Petraeus has been politicized at this point (by both sides, unfortunately), it’s not clear to me why he’s viewed as some sort of military messiah. And just generally, we don’t usually find it surprising when individuals insist that the job to which they are assigned is of absolutely vital importance. We should take their advice, if they are knowledgeable, consider their biases, and then make a decision based on the totality of the evidence.
Comment by Paul — 7/29/2008 @ 3:57 pm
Great post Josh!
I really hate this election! Neither McCain or Obama speak for the people. Oh sure they both say they do, but both of them are about popularity and power. Look at the legislation and the types of things they’ve both supported.
Whichever one wins, it will probably be for one term anyhow…hopefully.
Have you heard some of the things that Obama has been saying at his speech presentations? He’s calling himself the ‘annointed one’ and saying how the entire world is happy that he’s running. Strange stuff.
Comment by RC — 8/2/2008 @ 2:46 pm
Horrible post Josh!
I really love this election! Both McCain or Obama speak for the people. Oh sure they both say they don’t, but both of them are about honor and humility. Look at the legislation and the types of things they’ve both supported.
Whichever one wins, it will probably be for two term anyhow…hopefully.
Have you heard some of the things that Obama has been saying at his speech presentations? He’s calling himself the ‘annointed one’ and saying how the entire world is happy that he’s running. Great stuff.
Comment by CR — 8/2/2008 @ 4:30 pm
Oh look, what a surprise, Obama does another flip flop on off-shore oil drilling. He now says he actually would be in favor of drilling if it was part of a “comprehensive energy policy.” Of course this is what Republicans have been saying for months, but maybe people will listen now that the messiah is saying the same thing.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/state/epaper/2008/08/01/0801obama1.html
Comment by Ace — 8/3/2008 @ 8:46 am
Hahaha oh Obama. What a riot, and good article. I DO NOT want my country being run by a twit like him. I DO NOT want my liberties in the hands of someone who cannot take a firm stance on important issues. And I DO NOT need a messiah as the president.
At any rate, this election has been a wee bit of a circus act. I am curious to see where the fate of my county lies.
“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”- Ronlad Reagan
Comment by Give me Liberty or Give me Death — 8/3/2008 @ 1:46 pm
1. Regarding Obama skipping Landstuhl: Why couldn’t Obama just go alone, without his campaign or senate staff? Why couldn’t he visit our troops with other elected officials? This further diminishes his already-pitiful American values and national security qualifications. I understand he was on a whirlwind tour, but to go to the gym instead of visiting the troops?!?
2. I’d be the first to criticize McCain if he were to split away from his original position of conditions-based-withdrawal. Trust me, I’m not worried.
3. Iraqis have never been in favor of us staying. Fortunately for them, the government they elected has overruled them - it NEEDS the Army & Marines. The government cannot, despite what many appeasement apologists may think, contain Iranian Shia militias, foreign Al Qaeda militants, and homegrown thugs and criminals all at the same time and without significant military assistance. Our presence is bringing security dividends, soon it will bring more.
4. Petraeus has done an excellent job. How has the right politically exploited him? On the left, I remember the September 2007 “Betray Us” ad, which was heinous as it was false. Sure McCain has taken credit for some of Petraeus’ accomplishments, which he should, since he advocated for more troops, new generals, and a new counterinsurgency strategy since before Obama was even elected.
Comment by Tommy — 8/3/2008 @ 10:32 pm
A vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama.
Comment by Liberty or Death II — 8/6/2008 @ 11:54 am
First sentence: “Aren’t we all tired of the same old politicians?”
I agree. I mean, how old is John McCain, again? And how old is his patrician family?
Comment by McTaint — 8/28/2008 @ 10:27 pm
He’s 72. Not exactly in his prime years, but not exactly collecting dust either. And besides, we’ve had good luck with 70+ presidents. Remember Reagan?
Comment by Liberty or Death II — 8/28/2008 @ 11:51 pm