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.

Tonight was the education debate between the Cal Berkeley Democrats and the Berkeley College Republicans. It was moderated by the Informal Debate Society. The Cal Dems were represented by Ayesha and John, while BCR was represented by Kyle and Derek. Both sides had a freshman debate for them.

BCR’s plan was for the state to give each student a $5,500 voucher. This would allow many students to attend private schools of their parent’s choice. The Dems said privatization was bad and more money should be spend on public schools.

Both sides agreed No Child Left Behind had some bad aspects and standardized tests would only be useful if they tested the right things.

In the context of technology in the classroom, the Dems said doing math on slate boards like they did hundreds of years ago will not help a person with jobs today.

I commend the debaters for their participation. I think BCR came off looking better, but I can be biased.

As Amaris pointed out, the Los Angeles Times ran a story today that profiled two people in adverse political environments. One was our own James Fullmer, a Republican in Berkeley, the other Jacqueline Bujanda a Democrat in Garden City, Kansas.

Fullmer has been the California Patriot’s Managing Editor for the past two years and was the External Vice President of the Berkeley College Republicans for a year. While Fullmer has been very active, the resistance he encountered has been experienced by many other conservatives as well. I have received more dirty looks then I can remember. In the picture on the right James is setting up for an event to celebrate Ronald Reagan.

From the Times:

“It makes the other side defend their own turf, which means the less opportunity they have to go after yours,” said Dan Schnur, a UC Berkeley political science professor who was a spokesman under Republican Gov. Pete Wilson of California. “It can also be motivating for your supporters in other places.”

Both Bujanda and Fullmer see signs of a better future. Several leading Kansas Republicans, including the former chair of the state GOP, have switched political affiliation to become Democrats since 2004, signaling a possible sea change in state politics. And with Democratic groups splintering, the Berkeley College Republicans have established themselves as the largest political club on a campus long known for its razor-edged radical liberalism.

In Kansas, Bujanda has encountered similar resistance for being in the political minority.

Rural Kansas businesses are boycotted for Democratic sympathies. At one county clerk’s office, workers stared dumbfounded when Bujanda introduced herself as the new Democratic regional field coordinator. “There was total silence,” she recalled, “as if what I was doing was just an unheard-of thing.”

Intolerance of opposing political viewpoints goes both ways. At least Republicans don’t trumpet themselves as accepting and tolerant of everyone.

Today, Sproul Plaza was abuzz with young people expressing themselves! The World Can’t Wait folks were out, Sproul steps had a microphone with the usual message being broadcast, and the Dems had a “dramatic reading” of the Patriot. While I do not have photos (Chris? James?) the protest was uncharacteristically small. Perhaps they were all in the city, where the action is. Channel 5 (I believe) was out, interviewing the activists.

The dramatic reading of the Patriot was held by the Cal Dems, and had a substantial participation from some of our friends from SJP. They read some articles from our most recent issue in “hillbilly” voices, accompanied by similar music. Most of the conduct was de rigueur for Cal, although I was asked how it felt to be a “laughingstock”. For most of us tablers and actives in the conservative organizations on campus, being in the spotlight–or crosshairs–isn’t new, although I don’t expect our counterparts to know that. As a friend of mine said, “they are taking us more seriously than we are taking ourselves”.

And that is my commentary on the events of today. If anyone who was there for longer than I was could comment further, that would be excellent! Oh, and for some upcoming conservative activism, the Berkeley CR’s are hosting speaker Nonie Darwish on the 22nd, next Thursday in 2040 VLSB at 7pm. She’s the author of Now They Call me Infidel, a member of the group Arabs for Israel, and daughter of Lt General Mustafa Havez. As always, members of the opposition are welcome to attend.

So this is old news by now, but Rudy Giuliani announced his intended candidacy for President this week and was on Fox news on Tuesday I believe. I happened to turn it on and listened to some of what he had to say. I feel like he presented himself very articulately and well, especially on some of the more contentious issues for social conservatives, like gay rights, gun control, and abortion.

The two fairly clear sides are those who feel a more moderate candidate will split the Republican ticket, paving the way for whoever the Dems nominate, and the others who� believe he (or another such McCainesque moderate) is the ticket to defeating Hillary. So far, some polls show Giuliani ahead of McCain, 34% to McCains 22%, followed by 15% percent for Gingrich, actually. This RealClearPolitics poll showed only a 5% lead over McCain, with the third pick being Romney at around 6%.

However, we all know that polls are polls, and whoever gets out of the Republican gate will still have to race the Democrat’s horse, although it likely won’t be a dark one. I looked (albeit perfunctorily) through some Google searches for some Clinton/Obama/Edwards poll numbers (or anyone else) but the internet wouldn’t give up it’s secrets to me easily. That and I’m lazy. However, something interesting I did find on Mr. Obama. It’s no secret that he’s got Muslim heritage, and that he attended an “Islamic School” when he was younger, nor is it secret that he has had brushes with drugs. You would think both would be equally concerning to voters right? This article highlights that the Muslim issue apparently interests internet searchers more. Of millions of Obama searches on the internet in the last four weeks, the top five searches had a mention of the Muslim connection, while none of the top 20 hits concerned the drug issue. Call it a concern based on the current war, ‘islamophobia’, or whatever you want, but it’s on American’s minds. It’s just one article though, don’t get all jumpy.

This should be an interesting race due to the speeded-up primaries and lack of any incumbents. New blood should be interesting though. So what does everyone think? Who will get the Dems/Repubs nominations? Will we vote for an African-American, a woman, or a religious minority? Should Hillary stop wearing the pants?

For the past few months, I’ve found myself reading Daily Kos to get the left’s perspective on things. Also, I go there for the laughs. Here’s a gem from one user:

So, yes, Hagel could be a strong candidate IF HELL FREEZES OVER and Pelosi blows the agenda wicked bad. But I don’t think she will. She’s a woman. They think differently. I have faith in her maternal instincts.

So this must be the Dems’ version of the Bush-worship that went on on conservative sites back in the day. How I wish I could be there to watch this user’s reaction when “HELL FREEZES OVER,” otherwise known as when “politicians fail to deliver.” Is it even psychologically healthy to put this much faith into politicians and parties that continually disappoint?

In any event, watching the Democrats meltdown next year will be just as much fun as watching the current Republican meltdown. If there’s anything that this country needs right now, it’s less blind partisanship. Being jaded is better than being delusional. Though the latter is usually funnier.

Statewide
Arnold Schwarzenegger easily defeated Phil Angelides. I was hoping his coattails could help McClintock or Strickland get it but that did not happen. Steve Poizner was elected Insurance Commissioner but a candidate would have to be pretty bad to lose to Cruz Bustamante.

Bruce McPherson, the only other Republican incumbent lost. I am relatively happy with that, especially after I saw him speak in Political Science 179 last semester. Among my problems with him is his support for in state tuition for illegal immigrants.

I wish a few of the bond measures would have gone down, but that was not the case. I am happy the cigarette and oil taxes went down. Prop 85 lost by a larger margin then last year’s 73.

The National Scene
Republicans did a lot of things to merit losing. Outrageous spending, increasing government programs, and lack of Social Security reform are a few of the culprits. The situation in Iraq swayed a few voters. The scandals including Jack Abramoff and Mark Foley did not help. The cover up by leaders in the house did not bolster confidence either.

I would not call the election results a realignment of politics, as much as the rejection of the current elected officials’ group performance. A lot of moderates picked up seats.

Six years ago I was excited. Republicans had control of both Houses and the Presidentancy. In ‘02 and ’04 they went against the tide and picked up even more seats. Along the way they lost the Republican values that were swept into office so dramatically in ’94. I want a new Contract with America for 2008.

I don’t think Democratic control of the Congress will mean a significant new policy direction. I did not hear a unified plan before the election. They will be contending with an opposing President and his veto. Also both sides will be preoccupied with the ’08 election. The Democrats will look for every possible way to build on their momentum and the Republicans will be looking for a President since no Vice President is waiting in the wings.

What are your complaints about the past and hopes for the future? What do you think the Democrats will get done with Speaker Pelosi and majority leader Reid?

Yesterday Phil Angelides had a phone banking event in San Francisco. A number of his supporters made phone calls for him and a few were even in front of the building chanting and waving signs. In the spirit of political debate, some supporters of Arnold Schwarzenegger including me showed up to wave signs as well.

The Angelides supporters did not play nice. One of them called us Nazis and another stole a stack of Schwarzenegger signs from me and ran off with them. They chanted how much they hated Arnold and stole a Golden Bear chant to say this was union territory. We responded with “No new taxes” and “Scoreboard.”

They tried to intimidate us. The Angelides supporters even dropped water on us from the windows of their building and broke a megaphone of Arnold’s supporters. When the police came to interview people about the damaged megaphone, the person they were looking for had conveniently left the building.

For a minute Angelides himself appeared to encourage his supporters. Mayor Gavin Newsom also showed up to rally the Democratic faithful.

The one thing I did not expect was the lack of manors of Angelides’s supporters. I can understand rowdy and childish behavior from college students, but these were grown mature looking adults.

Keep Fighting
While the certainty of Arnold’s victory is growing every day, we cannot stop now. It is still a close race for many of the down ticket candidates. There are great conservatives including Tom McClintock and Tony Strickland who need those last few points to win. Arnold’s coattails can help, but we need every vote we can get. The campaign structure for Victory 06 is immense and is still in need of volunteers for the last hours of the campaign. On the national level Republicans might falter, but we can make California a big victory.

Yesterday Berkeley College Republicans President Josiah Prendergast and Cal Berkeley Democrats President Suzanne Ruecker appeared on CNBC’s Kudlow & Company. The interview speaks for itself.

Does Josiah favor supply side economics? See what he says.

Today in game theory, my professor introduced us to an example of a situation in politics that he called “the scoundrel versus the upstanding candidate.” He then proceeded to describe two options either candidate had: run an issue-based campaign or a dirty campaign, and then proceeded to list the possible outcomes of what could happen if the two candidates picked different options.

I thought it was an over-simplification. Then I came home and read this about the source of those� terrible, racist� private tape recordings that fell short of damaging the Governor.

I feel sorry for Angelides and his campaign people at this point. To me, it’s a sign of desperation. They truly are reaching for the bottom of the barrel, since the Governor has Angelides beat on the issues, and in terms of personality and managerial skill. Sean Hannity said it best: “The only person it offended was the one guy that doesn’t have a campaign to run on, who has a history of basically running in gutter politics.”

By the way, in case you� were wondering, the upstanding candidate wins in the scenerio when the scoundrel plays dirty. In theory.

The Jewish people, as a whole,� have always voted with the Democrats.� We are a historically liberal people. And Dennis Prager,� conservative Jewish radio talk show host, once quipped that most Jews are stilling voting for FDR.

The days of FDR are over and it certainly looks like the Democratic Party has turned its back on� its Jewish voting base. Nevermind that the head of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, has in the past implied that there is a moral equivalency between terrorist organizations and the state of Israel.

The recent Democratic� primary that kicked Senator Joe Lieberman out of the party, and� nominated Ned� Lamont� for Senate, speaks volumes about the Democratic Party today. Lieberman disagrees with� President Bush on most issues, except his foreign policy. But in the Democratic Party, there is no room for dissent. Hence, Lamont, hitherto unknown, gets the nomination; he tows the party line.

And what exactly have the Democrats replaced Lieberman with?� A far-left partisan hack, ideologically akin to Howard Dean.

It’s a pattern with the Democrats: in California the Republicans nominate moderate Governor� Schwarzenegger, the Democrats pass over Steve Westly for a� partisan hack, Phil Angelides. But� I digress.

I think Larry Greenfield, California director of the Republican Jewish Coalition,� in his article on the FlashReport said it best: “What is left to say to American Jewish Democrats, who just saw their brightest light, US Senator and former national Vice Presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, tossed out of his job by a neophyte preppie whose campaign slogans come from the anti-Israel far left?”

In Tuesday’s Berkeley Daily Planet, Bob Burnett had an article from one of my most despised genres: the argument that conservatives believe in small government and that their failures show the superiority and necessity of liberalism. Don’t buy it.

First of all, the only people who believe that conservatives support small government are blind partisans of the right and left. From the right are those that spout the rhetoric but do just the opposite. From the left are those that want to do the opposite of the right’s rhetoric. But let’s take Burnett’s word that the current leadership is filled with anti-government libertarians:

Conservative domestic policy rests upon a single tenet: the federal government must be drastically reduced because it impedes “the market.” Accordingly, the Bush administration and an obedient Republican Congress slashed taxes. They assured the American people that, as a “natural” result of these cuts the economy would flourish and the federal government would wither. But neither prediction proved accurate. The economy showed modest growth, which benefited only corporations and wealthy individuals; meanwhile, the real income of the average American family went down. And, the federal government didn’t shrink; it grew. The linchpin of conservatism ideology didn’t work.

Get the logic? Republicans cut taxes. Republicans increase the size of government. And that’s why reducing government doesn’t work. Airtight.

Corresponding to their naïve disregard for the federal government, conservatives advocated their brand of Social Darwinism: “You’re on your own.” They insisted government has no responsibility to protect the rights or well-being of citizens; claimed that the market will take care of everyone.

One could only wish this were true. Bush increased federal education spending, health care spending, and all sorts of other government programs. If only liberals were in power, then we could get increased federal education and health care spending… When it comes to increasing government, give credit where credit is due.

So, if we are to believe Burnett, “the dominant conservative ideology has failed and… This dire situation should be a golden opportunity for liberals.” I don’t know how it looks to you guys, but small-government conservatism hasn’t been dominant for at least 70 years. Supporters of big government (liberals and conservatives alike) have been switching places on the throne ever since. Burnett is right about one thing: we are in a dire situation. I don’t see it getting better any time soon.

It seems like a day isn’t a day without us hearing more about how cool Al Gore is. How surreal is it to see the public’s perception of Gore do a complete 180? In an alternate universe, this would be like Citizen Bush penning Pulitzer Prize-winning, allegorical novels excoriating the Gore Administration’s excesses. Strange stuff…

But while walking through San Francisco today, I saw a billboard that put the breaks on Gore’s “Tool to Cool” Tour. On August 26 and 27 at the Moscone Convention Center, Al Gore will be speaking at the one and only… Real Estate Wealth Expo (presented by the Learning Annex). George Foreman and that guy from Survivor will also be featured.

And he was doing so well…

While browsing through the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) website today I found a video that will be sure, given the “objectivity” of the mainstream media, not to cause too much of a fuss. In the video, “America Needs a New Direction”, the perceived failures of the Bush administration are chronicled. High gas prices, Hurricane Katrina, Tom DeLay, and other GOP liabilities are all in that video.

Additionally in the video was a picture, albeit onscreen for a short amount of time, of American flag-draped coffins. The presumption, although not said, was that these coffins were American soldiers recently killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The ending of the video urges Americans to fight (read: donate) for a Democratic majority.

I can see it now in a letter to the parents of those deceased soldiers. “We regret to inform you that your son, Robert Smith, died in action yesterday in Iraq. Because Howard Dean and Rahm Emmanuel (DCCC Chair) need political donations to win “back” the U.S. House, a picture of his coffin will be used as a political tool to encourage such donations.” Nice, huh?

Remember back in 2004, when the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, in an ad, used a picture of an American flag with a background of a building bombed out in 9/11? It was front-page news. Everybody was talking about it. The video was (thankfully & justly) phased out. One would hope the Dems do the same in this case. After all, says Mindy Kleinberg (see last link), “How heinous is that? Kleinberg asked. “That’s somebody’s [loved one].”

At least the “Party of Death” is right about something. America may need a new direction. It needs a minority party which respects all those who have fallen so that it may have the liberty to post advertisements as shallow and as disrespectful as the one in question.