07/03/2008 (9:45 am)
Break Out the Beach Gear
People change their minds. It happens all the time. I don’t mind a politician changing a position once in a while, although I’m appropriately suspicious when the mind change happens to coincide with a shift in constituency — like when Al Gore went from pro-life to pro-choice when he moved from Tennessee politics to national politics, or like when Mitt Romney did the reverse switch moving from Massachusetts to national politics.
My disgust with the Kerry campaign back in 2004 came, not from the occasional change of mind, but from Kerry taking opposite sides of the same issue at different locations on the same day. That sort of chameleon rhetoric indicates a man with no principles. Politicians need to shade their talk to adjust to different audiences, but that doesn’t make it ok for them to lie outright. Kerry was a liar.
And then, there’s Obama. Today, Ed Morrissey notes three separate representatives of the Obama campaign taking three different positions on troop withdrawals from Iraq, all on the same day. This can’t be deliberate; the problem is that Obama shifts positions so rapidly that even his own top staff doesn’t know where he stands.
Barack Obama is a chameleon, folks, but a dumb one. He doesn’t have principles he’ll admit to; he’s making it up as he goes along. This is not how honest men do it.
Time to break out the flip-flops.
« « Read This Post. Then You’ll Be Sorry. | Main | Independence Day » »
7 Comments »
Comment by RM
What is disgusting about this is that most people truly do not care. Many appear so mesmerized by Sen. Obama that he could request that all ax murderers be paroled immediately and if he uses that syrupy rhetoric, it would be accepted.
Comment by RM
Nevertheless, the RNC or the Mccain campaign, or somebody, needs to make a montage of this flip-floppery and juxtapose it with Sen. McCain’s articulation of his far more consistent position. The ad could end by a voice over: “Experience, consistency, judgement, and character count.”
Of course, it will be attacked as negative politics by the MSM or declared off-limits by Sen. Obama.
There is a lot of fodder out there, it just needs to be used.
Comment by Ecclesiastes
Pimp Muhammed, Phil! You’re putting out a lot of political prose!
I’m impressed.
Comment by darkhorse
Hi Phil, stepping back in for a moment here.
I thought the “sound byte” Republicans would stop the distortion of Kerry’s record once that election was a distant memory, but I suppose if you think that kind of dishonesty won the 2004 election, it was bound to be back.
You said:
“My disgust with the Kerry campaign back in 2004 came, not from the occasional change of mind, but from Kerry taking opposite sides of the same issue at different locations on the same day. That sort of chameleon rhetoric indicates a man with no principles. Politicians need to shade their talk to adjust to different audiences, but that doesn’t make it ok for them to lie outright. Kerry was a liar.”
On the day you are presumably speaking of, Kerry voted FOR an amendment to the bill to fund the Iraq war that would have paid for it by rescinding the tax cuts on people making over $300,000. Since the Republicans voted that amendment down, Kerry voted against the main bill on the same day.
Also that same day, the Republicans voted against the $87 billion dollar bill (with Kerry’s Amendment), and then FOR it later the same day. Those lying flip-floppers!
Your points about Obama’s uncertainty may be worth looking at – but be honest, Phil – you were not disgusted with the Kerry campaign – the opportunity for the “Flip flop” sound byte must have made you elated!
Comment by darkhorse
With a little further thought…were you discussing actual statements on the campaign trail by Kerry? Can you cite references? I don’t doubt that, as a candidate, Kerry spoke to the audience that was in front of him (which was, unlike Bush, not always carefully selected). Forgive me if I’ve misspoken about your intent.
Comment by Phil
Jim -
A) Welcome back. Nice to see you.
B) My wife wants to know how you pronounce your last name. I’ve always said “WAY duh,” but I’m so nervous about that being wrong that I’ve retreated to referring to you as “Jim W.”
C) The Iraq funding thing was what pedestrian Repubs leaped onto, because it was so doggone funny the way he tried to explain it: “I actually voted FOR it before I voted AGAINST it.” Yes, that was mere sound bite foolishness, and I never joined in on that. What I recall, and what I was referring to, is illustrated by an instance in which he’d addressed a VFW group in the morning and a union group in the afternoon, and he’d taken directly opposite positions on… um… I think it was some labor relations issue in the two speeches, telling the first group he was against and the second that he was for. It was four years ago and I didn’t keep links, so I’m afraid I can’t give you more specific info than that. As you said, it’s in the past.
Obama’s the current thing, and you’ve got to admit that the man is clearly changing his positions according to what he thinks people want to hear, and changing them so rapidly and so fluidly that it’s impossible to believe he really stands for anything.
Comment by darkhorse
Phil -
It is actually pronounced “Wade”, but it was the source of merciless teasing when I was a kid (”Weed”, “Weedy”, etc.). It is low German (VAY-duh) meaning, “from near the woods”.
I look at Obama’s wavering as inexperience and uncertainty, actually…which, of course, will translate to sounding like pandering. I still think most of the drawbacks of uncertainty will be taken care of with a knowledgable set of advisors – but I am still cautious about his ideas (not terrified yet…not enough meat).
Some great stuff you’ve been posting here, esp. the Darwin/ID piece, one of your finest ever.
Jim
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
