The Mother Of All Flip-Flops Is Now Upon Us — Just As Predicted
Posted by WLS:
Obama is now “restating” his plan to exit Iraq — or maybe he isn’t. He’s now topped John Kerry by being against an immediate withdrawal before he was for it — all in one day.
How do we know its a “flip-flop”? — well, start with the fact that he’s putting it out there in the afternoon before a three day holiday in the middle of the summer.
As reported here in the LAT this afternoon, Obama at a press conference in North Dakota late in the afternoon retreated from his statements earlier in the day which introduced a significant amount of doubt into whether he would follow through on pledges he made earlier in the campaign about withdrawing troops from Iraq. He’s had two news conferences in one day to address the subject — this guy is not ready for prime time.
Lets walk through a few of his earlier positions and statements:
Here is a WaPo article dated Jan. 31, 2007, about legislation authored by Obama in 2007 — the Iraqi War De-Escalation Act — which would have required the removal of all troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008 — yep, that would have been 3 months ago. This legislation was written about the same time as the President announced the “Surge” strategy for dealing with increasing violence.
During a Dem debate on September 27 , 2007, Obama made the following statement:
MR. RUSSERT: Good evening, and welcome. We have some big issues to talk about tonight, so let’s start right now.
Senator Obama, I’d like to start with you. General Petraeus in his testimony before Congress, later echoed by President Bush, gave every indication that in January of 2009 when the next president takes office, there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq. You’re the president. What do you do? You said you would end the war. How do you do it in January of 2009?
SENATOR OBAMA: ….
If there are still large troop presences in when I take office, then the first thing I will do is call together the Joint Chiefs of Staff and initiate a phased redeployment…. military personnel indicate we CAN get one brigade to two brigades out per month. I would IMMEDIATELY BEGIN that process…. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect U.S. bases and U.S. civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq.
The important principle, though, is there are not going to be any military solutions to the problem in Iraq. There has to be a political accommodation, and the best way for us to support the troops and to stabilize the situation in Iraq is to begin that phased redeployment….
What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office, which it appears there may be unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable, if there’s no timetable, then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we’re carrying out counterterrorism activities there.
In January, 2008, he said the following at a debate in Nevada:
OBAMA: I have opposed this war consistently. I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009.
My first job as president of the United States is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and say, “You’ve got a new mission,” and that is to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and do what they need to do to arrive at peace….
RUSSERT: In September, we were in New Hampshire together, and I asked the three of you if you would pledge to have all troops out of Iraq by the end of your first term.
All three of you said, you will not take that pledge. I’m hearing something much different tonight.
OBAMA: No, no, no. There’s nothing different, Tim…. I think this is important because it was reported as if we were suggesting that we would continue the war until 2013. Your question was, could I guarantee all troops would be out of Iraq. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions.
But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We’re going to have to protect our civilians. We’re engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq.
And now this morning, Obama says the following:
“I’ve always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground,” Obama said at the first news conference. “I’ve always said the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed.”
He added that his timeline was always contingent on keeping the troops safe.
“I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month COULD be pulled out safely from a logistical perspective,” he said. “And my guiding approach continues to be that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.”
Later in the afternoon Obama called a second press conference — and blamed McCain:
At his second news conference, Obama blamed Republican John McCain’s campaign for suggesting “we were changing our policy when we haven’t.”
The NYT reports on his two news conferences:
Mr. Obama said at his first news conference that he planned a “thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy when he visits the country later this summer. “I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability,” he said. “That assessment has not changed. And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”
So the Obama campaign hastily scheduled a second news conference to try to clarify his remarks. “We’re going to try this again,” Mr. Obama said. “Apparently, I wasn’t clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq….”
“Let me be as clear as I can be,” he said. “I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. , and again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months’ time.”
He added that when he had spoken about possibly refining his policies, he was referring to questions about how big of a residual force should be left behind to train Iraqi forces and conduct counterterrorism operations — not the overall timeline for withdrawal.
The last comment is just a flat lie.
Obviously he was trying to moderate his position withdrawal, and the left-wing exploded in his ear when the first press reports came out. That forced the second news conference to try and kill the story before it raged out of control.
Lets see how successful he is.
There is going to be a shortage of popcorn, buy all the futures you can.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:06 pmI watched cable news for an excruciating 15 minutes today, and this was all they were talking about on all three networks.
It is utterly retarded. Obama isn’t flip-flopping, he’s not wavering, he’s not changing his position, at least not on the issue of Iraq. Take it from me, a vocal war opponent. I’ve always agreed with Obama’s position on Iraq, and for the life of me I can’t find anything even remotely contradictory to what his position has been for years in what he said today.
And the media is supposedly in the bag for Obama, yeah right.
Levi (74ca1f) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:09 pmThe media loves a good story.
The bad part of it for Obama is that the story is becoming Obama’s inability to walk a straight line.
The media that saw him as the second coming of Bobby Kennedy is now seeing him as what he truly is — a South Side Chicago Pol who’ll say whatever he thinks is most expedient in his quest to be elected.
WLS (68fd1f) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:14 pmLevi is in the tank for BO and cannot even write a logical statement about his forlorn love for BHO….’I’ve always agreed with Obama’s position on Iraq, and for the life of me I can’t find anything even remotely contradictory’?? Flip flop from the CooCoo clock Obamessiah tools!
Moultrie (0c2c01) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:15 pmLevi —
What if the military commanders on the ground tell Obama that to maintain the stability in Iraq which has developed over the last 6 months, and to continue to promote the Iraqi gov’t efforts at political reconciliation, they need to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq for the forseeable future — they’ll know when they can draw them down, but they can’t predict when that might be. They won’t be there for a “shooting war”, but as a force for stability.
And Obama agrees with their assessment — where will you come out on that as a vocal war opponent?
WLS (68fd1f) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:17 pmWhenever Obama starts a sentence with “I’ve always said…”, you know he’s about to reverse himself.
Socratease (64f814) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:21 pmLevi, meet facts.
Obama: “I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009.”
Obama (next paragraphs): “I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there.”
Seems pretty clear. He will get the troops out by December 31, 2009, assuming he is elected President.
Hold on, he’s still speaking, saying he planned “a “thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy when he visits the country later this summer….And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”
When he had spoken about possibly refining his policies, he was referring to questions about how big of a residual force should be left behind .
“Residual troops”? Kept there for how long? surely not past December 31, 2009, because that would mean he wouldn’t have gotten the troops out of Iraq, like he had promised.
Nope, no flip-flop there; that’s a full grown high-speed rotation. He’s flipping so fast he reminds me of a professional Vegas dealer.
Either he is lying or you are.
Or both, I guess, I’m not fussy.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:23 pm“It is utterly retarded.”
Yes, it is.
And this blog is retarded and most of the posters are as well.
Utterly amazing.
Voting rich and living poor. The wingnut base.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:25 pmDoes anybody have Obama’s quotes when he was asked about the consequences of pulling out potentially resulting in genocide and his response was bsically, that’s their problem.
That doesn’t sound like a consistent focus on a stable Iraq to me.
My key words to signal an Obama lie are ” As I’ve consistently said.” Hang onto your wallets when you hear those words.
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:27 pmWow. Way to provide evidence to prove us wrong.
Still voting for Mr. Pancake? (Been flipped so many times, he’s dizzy by now.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:28 pmThat isn’t a flip flop. He is just lying. The Left knows that he is going to lie until the election. Unfortunately for Baracky, he was so incredibly transparent the media could not ignore this one. Look at the transcript from the Philadelphia debate when Baracky and Hillary were both vowing to ignore the Generals.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:31 pmWhat is this voting rich living poor meme harpy trots out every day?
JD (5f0e11) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:33 pmClass Warfare, As Seen From Mom’s Basement
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:34 pmWould you mind addressing Obama’s quotes from the post…you know, the post on which you’re commenting?
Person No. 85 (a1522a) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:36 pmReuters.
“”Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the joint chiefs of staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war,” Obama told reporters in his second news conference.
But he added: “I would be a poor commander in chief if I didn’t take facts on the ground into account.”
At an earlier news conference, the Illinois senator had said he could “refine” his stance after he visits Iraq.”
Good show Senator Obama. I”m sure the 25%ers will find something to bitch about but thankfully they are now irrelevant.
True patriotic Americans with common sense are about to elect you as the next President. With the new democratic majorities in the house and senate we can start to clean up the disasters of W and the GOP.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:38 pmApparently some on the left believe that the right has brainwashed common folks to vote for politicians who espouse policies that benefit the rich, while they, these brainwashed voters, remain poor. How did this brainwashing occur? Dunno, but it happened somehow, because, gosh darn it, how else to explain the fact that the commoners don’t uniformly vote Democratic?
Person No. 85 (a1522a) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:40 pmHelluvajob over the past two years, eh? Nothing to show but gas prices that have doubled. They haven’t ended the war, they haven’t impeached Bushalliblackco. They even voted to give immunity for the telcoms.
Good thing they’ve managed to bring Congressional approval ratings to a new low (lowest since they started asking the question). Hell, even used car salesmen have a better public image…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:43 pmI would just refer back to the Philadelphia debate where Baracky vowed to surrender immediately and ignore the Generals.
Person 85 – That is what I figured, but for the life of me, I do not see how the Dem policies would do anything but take money out of my pocket. But me and Better Half are successful, so the Dems just look at us as a revenue stream for social engineering.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/3/2008 @ 6:52 pm“The Mother Of All Flip-Flops Is Now Upon Us — Just As Predicted”
According to the WLS, the poster of lies.
And just what was the flip flop?
“At an earlier news conference, the Illinois senator had said he could “refine” his stance after he visits Iraq.”
WLS, do they pay you for this drivel? And bonuses for an out and out lie?
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/3/2008 @ 7:05 pmWLS, you tell me Obama has flip-flopped, however today’s WaPo tells me:
“Obama Softens on Iraq Withdrawal Timeline”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/03/obama_softens_on_iraq_withdraw.html?hpid=topnews
…much more palettable while keeping the believers believing.
Dana (a61bbb) — 7/3/2008 @ 7:07 pmIf global warming is upon us, it’s not too late to plant popcorn for a November harvest, even here in Minnesota!
htom (412a17) — 7/3/2008 @ 7:11 pmWLS, you tell me Obama has flip-flopped, however today’s WaPo tells me:
“Obama Softens on Iraq Withdrawal Timeline”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/03/obama_softens_on_iraq_withdraw.html?hpid=topnews
…much more palettable while keeping the believers believing.
Comment by Dana — 7/3/2008 @ 7:07 pm
Most Americans want the troops to be brought home.
McCain has promised to stay the course.
Obama has promised to do so but is willing to refine his dates.
I’m sure this is good for republicans.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/3/2008 @ 7:18 pmSocratease wrote: Whenever Obama starts a sentence with “I’ve always said…”, you know he’s about to reverse himself.
Man, that line is a keeper.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 7/3/2008 @ 7:32 pmThe same one you were defending against just a few comments ago. Now you’re pretending it doesn’t exist.
The third tactic you use is to change the subject, and fourth is to lie through your teeth. (Only 2 out of 4, but we’re only 22 comments in…)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/3/2008 @ 7:32 pmYou know what “but” means?
“Ignore everything I’ve just said, because now I’m going to tell you what I really mean.”
“Your kids are great, but…”
“That’s a lovely dress, but…”
“Great idea, Bob, but…”
You are admitting that Obama is changing his position, and are perfectly willing to forgive him his little foibles, just so long as he’s got a ‘D’ after his name.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/3/2008 @ 7:35 pmObama has promised to do so but…
You know what “but” means?
Yes, I do. Just as Senator Obama said, that he could “refine” his stance after he visits Iraq.
I think it’s exactly the right thing to do. As do most Americans.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/3/2008 @ 7:39 pmAnd how is “refining” a position of “I’ll pull out all troops by the end of 2009” anything other than “changing” that position to “I’ll leave some troops there for the foreseeable future, just in case”?
And how is that change not an almost complete reversal?
The facts are clear: Obama changes his long-held beliefs more often than you change your underwear.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/3/2008 @ 7:47 pmVoting rich and living poor. The wingnut base.
Unlike you I’m voting my principles and living on what I earn
But hey, I understand that these concepts may be shockingly foreign to you.
ThomasD (211bbb) — 7/3/2008 @ 7:56 pmDrumwaster, you know … that was a metaphor that just didn’t work.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2008 @ 7:57 pmThe problem, jharp and Levi, is that when Obama says “I would be a poor commander in chief if I didn’t take facts on the ground into account,” he is correct . . . and (wait for it!) . . . he is correctly stating that his announced removal of two brigades per month beginning as soon as he takes office is unrealistic, given that at this moment he has no idea what the facts on the ground will be six months from now. He is in effect admitting that he only made that promise in order to score votes from the peaceniks and isolationists on the left. Making a false promise and then revealing the fact that it was false constitutes a flip-flop.
Icy Truth (f5c7ef) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:10 pmI gotta give you credit. Finally a post that isn’t awash in stupidity.
Try this
”Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war.”
But he added: “I would be a poor commander in chief if I didn’t take facts on the ground into account.”
At an earlier news conference, the Illinois senator had said he could “refine” his stance after he visits Iraq.”
I think it makes perfect sense.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:12 pmYou guys want to talk about flip flops do ya?
Would you like a list of McCain’s flip flops?
I have no problem at all with Obama’s position.
I vastly favor it over McCain’s 100 year occupation.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:14 pmAnother of your lies, jharp.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:15 pmFTFY
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:16 pmTomorrow’s NY Times, the mouthpiece of the Republican Party:
“The changing dynamics in Iraq have posed a challenge for Barack Obama, who said Thursday that he might “refine” his policies but later held a second news conference to clarify his first statement.”
Levi and jharp can read the article here: Obama Fuels Pullout Debate With Remarks
Horatio (55069c) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:22 pmjharp:
Are you really foolish enough to think that your unending vituperation influences anyone except negatively? I bet “McCain’s 100 year occdupation” will be over long before Roosevelt’s occupation of Eiurope and Truman’s occupation of Korea.
typical bitter white person (4f4d7e) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:26 pmMore flip-flops than a California shoe store.
steve miller (724340) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:26 pmBaracl has one definitive Iraq position and he set it forth clearly right here. That should settle it for all concerned, once and for all.
capitano (03e5ec) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:28 pmFabulous link, capitano.
DRJ (a0ba79) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:29 pmI love it when Jharp and Levi tag team. Now if they could just bring in another such person they’d have one whole wit between the three of them.
Mike Myers (31af82) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:30 pmWe need a new book, “Where’s alphie?”
steve miller (724340) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:33 pmComing next from Obama:
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:36 pmI was never against a 100 year presence in Iraq and anybody you says I was is a racist.
Or Johnson’s War on Poverty. Or Nixon’s War on Drugs.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:39 pmI suppose this newest flip-flop is Obama’s special way of evidencing that he really is all about that change stuff… at least he’s consistent in something.
Change you can depend on!</i> Yep.
Dana (a61bbb) — 7/3/2008 @ 8:42 pmGerard Baker’s article in the UK Times wonders if Obama’s changing policies — e.g., his “pivot” on core issues like telecom immunity, Jerusalem, NAFTA, child rape penalties, Iraq, and Church-State separation — prove that he is a straight-down-the-middle American. Baker thinks these pivots prove how smart the Obama campaign is since, according to Baker, Obama knows he must reassure the American public that he’s willing to keep an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress in check.
Baker continues with an explanation of why the new, pragmatic Obama will have to “junk a lot more of the campaign baggage” — baggage like his tax policy and Iraq – before he’s in sync with mainstream Americans. (I assume Baker’s article was written yesterday since Obama unraveled today on Iraq. I guess that leaves his tax policy as his last loose thread.)
It’s amazing to watch Obama swing so much in such a short time. He must believe that his supporters are so invested in his candidacy that they will accept anything he does, and maybe he’s right. Nevertheless, it reminds me of this Bonnie Erbe op-ed at US News regarding Obama’s Presidential-lite seal:
Obama’s recent flip-flops make the seal look tame.
DRJ (a0ba79) — 7/3/2008 @ 9:24 pmJimmy Carter II.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2008 @ 9:29 pmRemember when Baracky complained that all he wanted was his waffle?
He got his wish.
steve miller (724340) — 7/3/2008 @ 9:34 pmThe liberal position isn’t one that states that a Democratic President must immediately remove the troops, regardless of the circumstances. The biggest disaster of this Iraq war is how entangled we’ve become there. Obama’s never advocated an immediate withdrawal because he recognizes that. George Bush has created an enormously difficult situation that must be thought about and solved very carefully, lest Iraq turn into something very disastrous.
The important difference between Obama and McCain on the war is that Obama recognizes that this whole thing has been a mistake and he wants to take steps to correct it with a focus on our withdrawal, whereas McCain is perfectly fine with continuing George Bush’s policy of staying until Iraq magically turns into a democracy. But Obama’s just not going to yank everyone out of Iraq, he’s going to do it intelligently. Which again, is what he has always said. You guys are making something out of nothing as usual.
Now as far as I’m concerned, I have been criticizing Obama as of late, specifically for his utterly incoherent and meek reversal on the FISA bill. Simply because I won’t join in with you Republican dolts and go on endlessly about flag pins and madrassas and ‘TWENTY YEARS IN THE PEWS!!!!’ and whatever other bullshit you guys dream up out nothing and classify as ‘character issues’ doesn’t mean I’m some blindly devout Obama cultist. I reserve my criticism for legitimate issues, and this FISA business is one such issue. In fact, the liberal reaction to Obama’s betrayal is somewhat reassuring. We’ve demonstrated we’re not the propaganda-chugging morons that Republicans are by not accepting Obama’s bullshit on this one. What you people are talking about is imaginary. What we’re talking about is trying to force a candidate to become better, to stay true to the base and the ideas that have gotten him this far.
Levi (74ca1f) — 7/3/2008 @ 9:34 pmBaracky’s base will do whatever it takes to justify his latest shift in position.
Yep. That’s fortitude all right.
“I was always against this war, before I was for it, and now I’m against it again. Until, perhaps, tomorrow, when I may be for it or against it. Maybe Michelle will tell me what to think.”
steve miller (724340) — 7/3/2008 @ 9:37 pmAmusing how often Barack Obama’s own words contradict Levi’s explanation of them.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2008 @ 9:38 pmSPQR, what’s amusing is that they suffer no intellectual grief over their rapidly spinning changes in belief.
If Baracky is for it, why, then, they are too, no matter how much his new beliefs contradict the old ones, especially since the old beliefs were the very things they used as the basis for their original support of Baracky. “He’ll get us out of Iraq the day he’s elected.” Or “he’ll negotiate without preconditions with Iran, and run in fear from the Fox Network.”
steve miller (724340) — 7/3/2008 @ 9:41 pmDRJ, this comment from Gerard Baker’s article was certainly a jarring thought.
“A clever pragmatist, he knows that if he wins in November, he will face an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, clamouring to push the country harder to the left. It would, irony of ironies, fall to President Obama to reassure the American people that he can hold those radical enthusiasms in check.”
This pivot of Obama’s is so interesting to watch because its still months away from the election and yet has not slowly moved center but moved hard and fast so by the time the election rolls around, neither the left nor the right really know what his stands will be.
Dana (a61bbb) — 7/3/2008 @ 9:52 pmDana,
I’m not reassured. Are you?
DRJ (a0ba79) — 7/3/2008 @ 10:02 pmDana, maybe it’s a very smart move. The left will support him no matter what (he gave up on FISA, a signature issue for him, and the left yawned in impotence), and the right will be head-faked as he picks up one McCain issue after another. Soon Baracky will be at an Operation Rescue event, fooling the right, and he’ll then turn around and say he was always for abortion rights, reassuring the left that he “really” hasn’t changed his position, even if his action show that he has.
steve miller (724340) — 7/3/2008 @ 10:04 pmOh, sure, not now that Barry has “refined” his position.. Barack said that he would remove the troops by the end of 2009. Now it’s “well, we will have to keep a few o them there to train Iraqis, a few to protect our civilians, a few more in case those aren’t enough, and a few more if Al Qaeda is found in Iraq for the foreseeable future”.
The two major Democratic candidates differed only in how quickly they could surrender.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/3/2008 @ 10:07 pmNo, DRJ, I’m anything but reassured. This is not only troubling but actually seeing it spelled out, well its almost surreal. And hows this for even more nuttines: If he is the next POTUS, and taking Baker’s statement as a pic of whats to come, its possible not only will Obama be in the position to reassure the right that he can and will keep the far left in check, he would also have a enormous leverage (for lack of a better term, over the right..I’ll keep them (Dem Congress/hard left) in control as long as you (the Right) do xy, or z (which may be compromises not normally found acceptable, etc.
steve miller, #54, and people will actually buy into that. His oratory skills and ability to dress up any comment is very, very effective. Amazing.
Dana (a61bbb) — 7/3/2008 @ 10:19 pmThis guy has stated so many variations on each side of the issue that it is impossible to know what he truly believes (he does believe something, yes?). This allows him to fall back to any position he desires, saying all the while “I have consistently maintained…”
Fortunately, he has a fifth column in the form of the MSM that will do whatever it takes to filter the noise coming out of his mouth.
I have never felt so disenchanted about a general election in all my 50+ years. I can only hope that the American people are smarter than I believe them to be.
marvl (f07c11) — 7/3/2008 @ 10:47 pmDana,
It is surreal – that’s a good word for it.
I think the primary solution is for John McCain to clearly state his message while also showing how changeable Obama’s message has been. Today McCain appointed a new top strategist who is described as the person in charge of finding a more effective message, so it will be interesting to see what happens next.
DRJ (a0ba79) — 7/3/2008 @ 10:49 pmAccording to the New York Times, Obama is still going to withdraw all troops in 16 months. (By the way, Obama originally said by the end of 2009. Unless he’s planning to add a few months to the calendar, 16 months from him taking office is not the end of 2009.)
How’s that again? Obama is going to “refine” his plans after meeting with military leaders, but he’s still going to take all the troops out in 16 months — apparently, no matter what the military leaders tell him.
Flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop.
Let’s hope that when Obama’s head finally stops spinning it’s pointed the right way.
Steverino (1dda08) — 7/3/2008 @ 10:53 pmHow could you tell?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/3/2008 @ 10:55 pmFor those like to see flip flops take a look at the Guiness Book of world records all time champion.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html
For those who can’t watch clips online, Jack Cafferty noted some of McCain more glaring recent reversals, adding, “If John McCain doesn’t stop changing his position on the issues, he threatens to make John Kerry look like an amateur. In order for McCain to win in November, he has to appeal to both the traditional Republican base and to Independents. Dana Milbank, in The Washington Post says that’s a delicate dance. And if McCain’s not careful, ‘he’s liable to break a hip.’ Of course, any doctor will tell you a broken hip can be very difficult to recover from.”
The past couple of weeks have been especially difficult when it comes to McCain flip-flops.
* 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.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:12 amEastasia better look out!
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:28 amjharp–
Lots of people supported the drilling moratorium when oil was $5/barrel, and changed their mind recently. Only a fool wouldn’t.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:35 am“Lots of people supported the drilling moratorium when oil was $5/barrel, and changed their mind recently. Only a fool wouldn’t.”
So I guess flip flops are OK when the situation changes.
Or is that only when republicans do it?
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:39 amThis is not a refinement, flip-flop, or pivot thing. The cappuccino candidate is a Whirling Dervish in a magic trance in which reality is whatever he thinks it is at the moment. But I am getting dizzy trying to determine if there is any other principle at work here.
LaMonte (e170a9) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:48 am100 Years in Iraq.
Perfect Sense (23c691) — 7/4/2008 @ 1:07 amYES WE CAN!
Ofcourse the ultimate flip flop was when BO went on the air after being elected to the US Senate and said that he would not run for president this cycle. This was in 2005 or so.
BO is the political equivalent of Jim Jones and the Levis and jharps of the world are the political equivalent of rotting corpses in the Guyanan sun. Anyone that can believe that a Chicago pol is a reformer, especially a D, is a fool. Sad to say there are many of them and they just might elect this clown.
BT (78b929) — 7/4/2008 @ 2:18 amCan I assume that some of the fireworks today, the Fourth, will be that provided by the various members of MoveOn whose heads will be exploding? They must be particularly upset as that at least under Pres. Carter this type of policy reversal didn’t happen until after the Inauguration.
Pat Patterson (f44efe) — 7/4/2008 @ 4:06 amThis guy is SOOOOO not ready for prime time. And his true-believers will spin anything for him.
jbl (a78307) — 7/4/2008 @ 5:13 amI think it’s funny that all jharp has left is tu quoque.
Steverino (1dda08) — 7/4/2008 @ 5:26 amFrom the Times of London – another Rovian, BusHitlerian, Rethuglican tool
Barack Obama’s policy switches are giving the Left whiplash
Change, it turns out, wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be. Having campaigned for the past year as the agent of transformation, the man who would lead an historic shift in America’s political direction, Barack Obama is discovering that there is quite a lot he likes about the way things are.
Since securing the Democratic nomination a few weeks ago, the only change coming from the Illinois senator has been in what he seems to stand for. Last month he dropped his opposition to a Bill before Congress that would give telecoms companies immunity from prosecution for carrying out illegal wiretaps on potential terrorist suspects.
He told a cheering crowd of Israel’s supporters of his fervent commitment to the security of the Jewish state and added, for good measure, that an “undivided” Jerusalem should be the nation’s capital. He said that he likes free trade after all, and that his primary campaign pledge to dismantle the North American Free Trade Agreement was a case of “overheated rhetoric”.
Last week he expressed support for a Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban on handguns and opposition to another that outlawed the death penalty for rape of a child.
This week he promised to expand President Bush’s faith-based organisations initiative, a programme that channels funds to religious groups so that they can deliver social welfare services, which the Left regards as a heinous blurring of Church-State separation.
If next week he named Dick Cheney as his running-mate and revealed that he spends his spare time drilling for oil in wildlife habitats, the only surprise would be that it took him so long.
Of course there’s nothing much new in what the senator has done. In the lexicon of modern American politics, it’s called a pivot. You campaign hard to the party’s extreme in the primary election, where the base voters tend to be. Then, when the nomination is secure and there are no more idealists to be humoured, you pivot back to the centre. The only difference is that in Mr Obama’s case the pivot is so hard and so fast that the entire Democratic Party is suffering from whiplash.
A whimper of pain has gone up from the base. Those who really believed in the Audacity of Hope now fear a Timidity of Despair. Thousands of Obama supporters have signed a petition on his website begging him to reconsider his position on the illegal wiretaps – a seemingly minor campaign issue, but one that carries great talismanic symbolism for civil libertarians.
Left-wing commentators have raised the usual cry of betrayal. Arianna Huffington, that rare creature, a young conservative who moved sharply left in middle age, dubbed Mr Obama’s move not realpolitik, but “realstupidpolitik”.
Conservatives, meanwhile, led by John McCain’s Republican campaign, say that the presumptive Democratic nominee’s pivot shows that, for all his talk of offering a new kind of politics, he is really just another cynical politician who will say anything to get elected.
I suspect that all this worries Mr Obama not at all. The louder the Left complains, the deeper the satisfaction at Obama headquarters.
Can you remember a time in, say the past 100 years, when the American people have rejected a presidential candidate because they thought that he was insufficiently left-wing? As for conservatives, they should be cheering Mr Obama, not complaining.
The Left had hoped that 2008 would be a watershed election, a long-awaited counterblast to the Reagan Revolution of 1980 and Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1994. And if there were ever a time when the country seemed ready to move left this was surely it. Democrats have a 20-percentage-point lead in opinion polls; those same polls show that almost fourfifths of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. The Republican Party today has all the appeal of a communicable disease.
And yet, on the issues, as Mr Obama understands, people are not so radical. On domestic prosecution of the War on Terror, on cultural issues such as guns and the death penalty, on religion’s role in public life, perhaps even on trade and free markets, there is little evidence that Americans are ready to abandon their beliefs.
This is another example of how smart the Obama campaign is. They understand that the biggest impediment to an Obama presidency is lingering doubt about whether their man is a straight-down-the-middle American. Despite having a couple of bestsellers to his name, he is still something of a blank page to most voters, one on which his opponents are trying to doodle all kinds of unflattering portraits of an extremist.
So he is spending these dog days of summer reassuring interested but nervous voters that he is as American as the Fourth of July. And he is doing something else besides – looking ahead to his possible presidency.
A clever pragmatist, he knows that if he wins in November, he will face an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, clamouring to push the country harder to the left. It would, irony of ironies, fall to President Obama to reassure the American people that he can hold those radical enthusiasms in check.
What is more, by abandoning so many left-wing totems, Mr Obama is emphasising that his promise of change is more than just a swing to the left of the old political pendulum; that his promise of post-partisan politics is a genuine one.
But there is a risk in all this repositioning. Mr Obama will almost certainly have to junk a lot more of the campaign baggage he has accumulated over the past year.
Two big plans look especially vulnerable. The first is his tax policy. This would raise the top marginal rate of federal income tax in the US on those earning $250,000 a year to more than 56 per cent. As the conservative Heritage Foundation pointed out in a report this week, that would put the US somewhere between Finland and Sweden in a league table of marginal tax rates. I doubt whether the American people really want to adopt a Scandinavian economic model, especially during a period of stagnation.
The other challenge is Iraq. Mr Obama continues to insist that Iraq is a failed war and says that he will withdraw all US combat troops within 16 months of taking office. But the closer the election gets, the less plausible it will be to refuse to acknowledge the success that US forces have had in Iraq in the past year.
If, as I suspect is highly likely, he drops these two big remaining planks from his platform, it might not just be the Left who will be wondering: what’s left?
Horatio (55069c) — 7/4/2008 @ 6:57 amIt reminds me of a Monty Python sketch.
Barney15e (7f9027) — 7/4/2008 @ 7:25 amI will pull out troops immediately…and safely
I will start to pull out troops immediately, but at a rate that is safe. And ensure stability.
Ok, I will start to pull out troops immediately, but only at a rate that will ensure troop safety and the stability of Iraq. And stop Al Qaeda.
Ok, I will start to pull out troops immediately, but only at a rate that will ensure troop safety and the stability of Iraq, but I will leave in enough troops to fight off Al Qaeda, if they set up bases in Iraq.
…
#64, jharp
What situations have changed for BO that would change his mind?
Well, except for political expediency, of course.
Barney15e (7f9027) — 7/4/2008 @ 7:30 amWhat situations have changed for BO that would change his mind?
Well, except for political expediency, of course.
Comment by Barney15e — 7/4/2008 @ 7:30 am
What? What do you think? That he’s trying to woo the 25% ers?
Kevin Drum said it best.
“Obama held a press conference in the morning saying, as usual, that he planned to bring our troops home from Iraq in 16 months, but leaving himself a bit of wiggle room based on issues of troop safety and political stability. This “fueled speculation” that he was changing his position, so he held a second press conference in which he said:”
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 7:53 amLet me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months’ time.
So, Baracky will surrender immediately, despite what the Generals tell him. According to harpy. Baracky tells a different story, but honesty is not harpy’s strong suit.
JD (a6d772) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:03 amSo, Baracky will surrender immediately, despite what the Generals tell him.
Obama added: “I would be a poor commander in chief if I didn’t take facts on the ground into account.”
And just like there is nothing to “win” there is nothing to “lose” except $12 billion PER MONTH in our money.
It’s over. Saddam is gone. Iran has won and we payed for it.
Heckavu job, W!
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:12 amThe only way Iran will ever win this, harpy, is if the likes of you get your way and we quit. The millions of brown people that will needlessly get slaughter in the aftermath of your surrender would like to join the dead Vietnamese and Cambodians in thanking you for your support.
JD (a6d772) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:14 amharpy – What if the Generals tell him that his plan will result in mass slaughter? Baracky has already said he will ignore that, see the Philadelphia debate. If you cannot even acknowledge that Baracky had about 5 positions on this issue, just yesterday, then you are significantly less honest that I originally thought, not something to be proud of.
JD (a6d772) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:16 amYou are absolutely hillarious harpy.
Mark Shields said it best – Obama couldn’t pass a polygaph test.
Spin baby spin, you’ll be in China for the Olympics.
Hey, look over there, did you know your candidate is old?
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!!!
Spin baby Spin
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:18 amHarpster said yesterday he was outta here.
But he’s back.
So, was he lying then, or is he lying now?
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:22 amLike a true acolyte with nothing but plankton – supporting brain matter, Harpy spews forth with much invective, but no substance. His Dear Leader’s going to take him to the promised land, don’t trouble him with facts that get in the way of his forthcoming Rapture. But he better keep away from those “bullets,” if he knows what’s good for him.
Dmac (ea35f7) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:23 amThe Harpster will follow Baracky down like the captain followed the Titanic down to the ocean floor.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:24 am“His Dear Leader’s going to take him to the promised land”
No, our next President is going to get us out of Iraq, the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history.
And the 25% ers are trying to hang on. For what, God only knows.
And I don’t know about you guys but I think we could use the $12 billion per month than is being pissed away.
And I know the GOPers love to borrow and spend. But thankfully their reign is almost over.
Worst administration ever. $4 trillion gone. Economy in shambles. $145 barrel oil. $4 gas. Torture. Warrantless spying on Americans.
Heckuva job, W!
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:31 amThe final two paragraphs from today’s N.Y. Times editorial.
“New and Not Improved
We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.
There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.”
Obama is losing he Times, Oh Noes!!!!!
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:31 amharpy is becoming increasingly unglued.
Happy 4th of July, everyone. Even to you haters like harpy and Levi.
JD (a6d772) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:33 amHow would you know anything about my ‘original support of Barack?’
I know for a fact he’s never said he’d get us out of Iraq the day he’s elected, stop making shit up.
Levi (74ca1f) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:33 amBaracky changes his opinion almost as often as the Harpster ignores the facts.
Which is to say – often.
For those of you in Indiana, I’ll type more slowly: Baracky is flip-flopping.
Flip
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:33 amFlop
Flip
Flop
Yeah, this is the the dumbest thread I’ve ever seen around here.
Levi (74ca1f) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:34 amDear Levi,
Sometimes it’s ok to be paranoid, but in this case, I’m actually not speaking about you.
Cheers, and enjoy the 4th.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:34 amWho the hell are you talking about then? I’ve never heard any supporters of Obama excitedly discussing how he’d start pulling troops out immediately.
Levi (74ca1f) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:37 amLevi,
Sometimes it’s not about you.
Cheers, and enjoy the 4th
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:38 amsteve miller – If it is from Indiana, the rest of us do not claim him. And, if it is from Indiana, there is a great likelihood that it is from Bloomington, or the People’s Republic of Monroe County.
JD (a6d772) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:40 amFrom the NYT (yes, that NYT!)
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:44 amNow, just what term of what Presidency is Barry really running for?
Darleen (187edc) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:44 amBut, of course, when Baracky changes his mind, again and again, that’s not flip-flopping. That’s change you can believe in.
Yep, he changes all right.
More flip-flops than a California shoe store.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:45 amDarleen – that’s Baracky in a nutshell.
He’s just prettier than Nixon, that’s all.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:45 amThis country needs change it can believe in.
Can you break this hope? I need some change.
nk (16accd) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:46 am$145 barrel oil. $4 gas
Of course, Barry and the Don’t Drill Democrats LOVE that.
maroon
Darleen (187edc) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:47 amObama doesn’t seem too worried about a stable Iraq in this AP story from last summer.
Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide
updated 2:58 a.m. CT, Fri., July. 20, 2007
SUNAPEE, N.H. – Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said.
Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it’s likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.
“Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis,” Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. “There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there.”
The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.
“It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions,” he said.
Fierce critic
The senator has been a fierce critic of the war in Iraq, speaking out against it even before he was elected to his post in 2004. He was among the senators who tried unsuccessfully earlier this week to force President Bush’s hand and begin to limit the role of U.S. forces there.
“We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they’re asking the wrong question,” he said. “We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade.”
Obama said the answer to Iraq — and other civil conflicts — lies in diplomacy.
“When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they’re under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can’t solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun,” he said. “There’s got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts.”
GOP: ‘Obama can’t seem to make up his mind’
The Republican National Committee accused Obama of changing his position on the war.
“Barack Obama can’t seem to make up his mind,” said Amber Wilkerson, an RNC spokeswoman. “First he says that a quick withdrawal from Iraq would be ’a slap in the face’ to the troops, and then he votes to cut funding for our soldiers who are still in harm’s way. Americans are looking for principled leadership — not a rookie politician who is pandering to the left wing of his party in an attempt to win an election.”
Obama, who has expressed reservations about capital punishment but does not oppose it, said he would support the death penalty for Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.
“The first thing I’d support is his capture, which is something this administration has proved incapable of achieving,” Obama said. “I would then, as president, order a trial that observed international standards of due process. At that point, do I think that somebody who killed 3,000 Americans qualifies as someone who has perpetrated heinous crimes, and would qualify for the death penalty. Then yes.”
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:50 amI wonder what campaign promises Baracky will break today?
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:50 am“I’ve never heard any supporters of Obama excitedly discussing how he’d start pulling troops out immediately.”
If that’s the case, then you’re living in a fairly small, self – contained bubble. Spend a few days around my hometown (Chicago) and you’ll get an earful about immediate withdrawal – whether the O – Man means it or not at this point, the spectre of another evacuation via helicopters – on – the – roof is making quite a few of his acolytes here literally frothing at the mouth with excitement. Lots of folks also think Reverend Pfleger and William Ayers are true American heroes as well. Good times.
Dmac (ea35f7) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:53 am“How would you know anything about my ‘original support of Barack?’”
Levi – Why do you imagine anyone here cares?
It is not all about YOU!!!!!!
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:53 amHey Darleen,
“No, the government may be observing where your calls GO and at what TIMES, but they aren’t listening to the call itself.”
sheesh
Comment by Darleen — 7/3/2008 @ 10:24 am
What you say about this? After it turns out Bush’s own incompetent DOJ sends a transcript of the calls they had listened in on.
Too. Dam. Funny.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:54 am“This isn’t the withdrawal plan I thought I knew…”
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:57 amPlease post snarky comments about wiretapping on the right entry.
This is a post for posting snarky comments about Baracky’s inability to keep his word.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:59 amjharp
You were thoroughly spanked on that thread yesterday. Quit being a baby.
Darleen (187edc) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:59 amYou DO realize that Baracky is seen by his left-base as having broken his word again?
Only the true believers at this point think he’s an honest man. Some (Dan Rather?) even think that an honest man can lie like a dog and still be “honest.”
Maybe that’s what we have here.
Baracky Obama – as honest as he needs to be.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:01 amPerhaps the problem is that to True Believers anything Baracky says must be true.
If they would simply agree that he’s like all other politicians, we could have a more reasonable discussion.
But because they insist that he must be right no matter how many times he changes his position (and lies about changing it), they have to go through mental and moral contortions to justify their ever-changing rationales for supporting Obamessiah.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:05 amI predict that Baracky will “get us out of Iraq” about as fast as Nixon “got us out of Vietnam.” That is, never during his term in office.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:06 amOh, lookee – he’s about to flip yet again, this time on abortion:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/03/obama-tacks-right-on-abortion-now/
Jeebus, this is getting beyond parody at this point. Whatever he just stated on any subject is now open to pandering immediately 180 degrees, depending on which audience he’s pandering to at the moment.
Methinks the Dems are experiencing what’s commonly called “buyer’s remorse” in the consumer marketplace.
Dmac (ea35f7) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:07 amHey! Didn’t I predict he’d change his inflexible position abortion?
And a pretty funny remark by the first poster:
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:08 amBaracky – more flippin’ than an IHOP cook.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:10 amanother good one from the Hot Air commentors:
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:13 amTalk about buyer’s remorse – now the nutroots are really getting their panties in a knot:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA/members
Please note: the site linked is NOT a parody. Maybe they should retitle this blog as “Barack Obama’s not the man we thought we knew.”
Dmac (ea35f7) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:24 am“These are not the policy positions you were looking for.”
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:32 amBut to some of the more enlightened souls, all this vacillating just shows that O!bama is pragmatic and will hold an increasingly leftist Congress in check in favor of more traditional values espoused by most Americans. Thus he would not, for example, raise taxes with prospects of stagflation appearing. People listen to his soaring rhetoric and believe whatever they want to. The fact is he would be the first black potus (1/16 black actually) and could assuage white guilt and give new hope! and pride that he would change! how awfully bad the blacks are treated.
I guess we can forget about O!bama’s actual pals in dirty Chitown politics or the numerous bad actors he has figuratively fellated the past twenty+ years. If you buy his flip flops, I suppose eventually the sheep will see no difference between Juan McCain and O!bama other than age and race and “fact” that McCain would just be Bush redux. Why anyone would trust this corksucker/cocaine snorting neo-marxist not to be true to his roots is beyond me. Lots of clues in his best selling autobiographies though. I guess it helps that the media turns a blind eye and is obsessed by his grooviness and the fit of his crotch in his tight jeans (media’s own observation).
madmax333 (49e7ce) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:34 amAnd if you neocons don’t vote for hope and change that O!bama promises, you are just disgusting racist pigfeckers.
“Yeah, this is the the dumbest thread I’ve ever seen around here.
Comment by Levi ”
Any thread you participate in is a candidate for that honor. Keep it up, kid.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:41 amAfter it turns out Bush’s own incompetent DOJ sends a transcript of the calls they had listened in on.
When it comes to “incompetent DOJ”, jharp is right on the money. No President has been worse served by his Justice Department than President Bush after Ashcroft left.
nk (16accd) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:08 am“When it comes to “incompetent DOJ”, jharp is right on the money. No President has been worse served by his Justice Department than President Bush after Ashcroft left.”
And of course it’s not Bush’s fault. He’s only the boss.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:12 amHey, it works for the Obama campaign…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:14 amIt’s been like 3 hours since Baracky’s last flip-flop.
Man, he is a rock when it comes to fortitude!
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:23 amIf you’ll stop the snark for a few seconds, jharp, we can agree that the President has overemphasized loyalty, by him and to him, over competence, throughout his two terms.
nk (16accd) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:32 amThe O – Man’s method of campaigning: Throw sh-t up on the wall, and see what sticks. Whatever’s left hanging on the wall is that campaign’s new message of the day. Secondary method: stick wet forefinger out of rear window, check to see which way wind is blowing. Results may vary.
Obama: best windsock to come out of Chicago – evah.
Dmac (ea35f7) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:33 amIts like a buffet. You can pick and choose what to believe about the man’s positions.
Everybody loves a buffet.
jpm100 (b48b29) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:33 amSpeaking of flip flops …
Charles Krauthammer notes in today’s column that Obama is once again wearing a flag pin on his lapel.
I wonder what Levi Louse and company think of this kind of brazen jingoism.
Bubba Maximus (456175) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:47 am“After claiming in May that he would debate John McCain “anytime, any place,” Obama declined to participate in a series of 10 town hall-style meetings, which the McCain campaign proposed.” Philly Inquirer
Pretty much non-stop lying from Baracky.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:48 amBaracky was for patriotism afore he was aginst it.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:50 am“If you’ll stop the snark for a few seconds, jharp, we can agree that the President has overemphasized loyalty, by him and to him, over competence, throughout his two terms.”
Good one.
People who believe in accountability might just say Bush and his minions are incompetent.
You ever her the saying “the buck stops here”
It doesn’t friggin matter how you get there. Incompetence is still incompetence and George Bush is the man in charge.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:51 amBush – the president for the last 7 1/2 years – will be out of office in 6 months.
Baracky wants to take over that office, and is proving to be liar in nearly every statement he makes. (I think he once said the sky is blue, but seriously, I had to go outside to check.)
Baracky: as constant as the tide.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:52 amHow many people has Barack thrown under the bus? Because Bush having to accept responsibility for every one of the millions of career bureaucrats is absolutely nothing like repudiating Barry’s spiritual mentor (that he knew for 20+ years), or the 8,000 members of his church, or his white grandmother, or…….Ad nauseum infinitum
I mean, it’s not like Barry wants to have Bush’s job or anything.
Wait, what?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:58 amVictor David Hansen has a smart piece re Obama flip-flops and wryly asks:
“The question is no longer on what has Obama backtracked, but rather on what has he not?”
He points out that the flip-flops have taken place so late in the season and so quickly that they are going to be in memory longer than his move to center positions will be. Obviously this is not to his advantage.
” Every opportunist knows that in presidential politics such shamelessness should be over and done with by March.”
While lacking substance, his handlers and party are relying on his charm and messiah-like status of this novel candidate to cover for his obvious flip-flops, er uh, evolution …
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGM3ZmM5ODU3MjBiMGMwOTc3ZjA0MzNmNGEyNDRiOGM=
Dana (416b2c) — 7/4/2008 @ 11:08 am#74, jharp
So, the quote from Drum says nothing has changed in BO’s enlightened view of Iraq, yet he is changing his mind.
Like I said before, except for political expediency, what drove this shift in his policy.
Barney (7f9027) — 7/4/2008 @ 11:56 amHarp cannot stop the snarks so it seems a waste of time to respond to him/her/it. I would recommend Timmerman’s Shadow Warriors as a good source of information about Bush’s troubles with the bureaucracy. There were three problems. One, the Washington bureaucracy leans left politically, no matter who is president. Republicans go into business; Democrats go into government. Second, Bush’s administration was hamstrung for six months because of the close election. The Democrats, because of turncoat Jeffords, had the Senate majority and held up all of Bush’s appointments for months. That forgotten fact contributed to the lack of preparation for 9/11 as they had few appointees below the Secretary level until summer 2001. Third, Bush has tended to reward close friends and loyal supporters with positions over their competency.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:06 pmBarn,
“Like I said before, except for political expediency, what drove this shift in his policy.”
Common sense. He simply left himself a little wiggle room.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:16 pmThis is what is known as “lying”. Perhaps spun as “pandering to his audience, saying what he thinks they want to hear just to gain support” or “political expediency”.
But out here in the real world, that is called “lying”. Bush does it, you scream “Impeach”. Obama does it, you say “you rubes are just too stupid to understand him”.
If anyone wants to know what harpie looks like, try in the dictionary under “hypocrite”.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:21 pm“There were three problems.”
None of which were George Bush’s fault, I’m sure.
Good God, when did the GOP beocme the party of making excuses? I don’t know where any of you work or went to school but there are no excuses for making excuses. None. Especially as President.
“One, the Washington bureaucracy leans left politically, no matter who is president. Republicans go into business; Democrats go into government.”
So I guess you’re saying Georgie Boy couldn;t take the heat.
“Second, Bush’s administration was hamstrung for six months because of the close election.”
Nothing but incompetence here, move alonmg. ”
“The Democrats, because of turncoat Jeffords, had the Senate majority and held up all of Bush’s appointments for months.”
Presidnets all of the time do just find with opposition majorities. Reagan? Clinton?
“That forgotten fact contributed to the lack of preparation for 9/11”
Do you mean when Bush ignored the warnings and allowed the worst terror attack in U S history?
“Third, Bush has tended to reward close friends and loyal supporters with positions over their competency.”
This would be called being an incompetent leader.
Get friggin real. The buck stops at the top.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:24 pmMike K – Last I read, 73% of the career lawyers in the DOJ are democrats. That’s done wonders for the Bush Administration’s effectiveness. Don’t even start talking about the pinko commie fags over at the State Department.
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:26 pm“73% of the career lawyers in the DOJ are democrats. That’s done wonders for the Bush Administration’s effectiveness.”
More excuses. If what you say is even true, so friggin what. We are a nation of laws. The justice department is sworn to uphold those laws.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:50 pmCommon sense. He simply left himself a little wiggle room.
Who can deny Barack Do-You-Prefer-Your-Potatoes-Baked-Or-Au Gratin Obama a little wiggle room, wiggling in delight while he polished Mayor Daley’s knob?
nk (16accd) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:52 pmIf what you say is even true, so friggin what.
harpo – The kids’ table is over at Daily Kos where you belong. Adults are talking here.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/4/2008 @ 1:01 pmSo now even the harpster admits Baracky is lying. The funny thing is, when Baracky says something harpster likes, he’s not lying, but when he does say something harpster doesn’t like, then Baracky is going for “wiggle room.”
Around here, not saying what you mean and instead saying what you don’t mean is called lying.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 1:31 pmBaracky has promised to end the $1 trillion goodwill mission in the desert.
If it takes a little longer than the 16 months he originally said I don’t see it as a big deal.
McCain has promised to stay the course. $12 billion a month for nothing.
It’s quite an easy choice for me. As a matter of fact I think it is the defining issue of the election.
Most Americans want the war over. So who do think is a net winner on this issue?
Keep in mind Baracky is not trying to woo the 25% ers.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 1:44 pmSo Obama gets to be held responsible for all of those people that were speaking on his behalf (that he has since thrown under the bus).
Who’s got the list of the population under that bus? Jeremiah Wright (I won’t call him the R-word), Tony Resko, and a partridge in a pear tree.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 1:58 pm“So Obama gets to be held responsible for all of those people that were speaking on his behalf”
More idiocy from Drumwater.
Jeremiah Wright does not work for us. He’s allowed to say and do whatever he chooses.
And refresh my memory on how he was speaking on Obama’s behalf.
Where did you go to school?
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 2:06 pma ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
So Bush is responsible for the entire federal bureaucracy, but Obamessiah gets a pass from his endorsed supporters?
I love it.
Baracky can lie like the day is long, and his cultic supporters will pull a Linda Blair keeping their eyes firmly fixated on the latest contradictory policy position.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 2:09 pmThe buck stops at the top, except for Baracky – in his case, there is no buck. There is only change. Constant change.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 2:12 pm“So Bush is responsible for the entire federal bureaucracy”
Bush is responsible for the Justice Department. You know the one where he picks the attorney general who leads the DOJ. He also commander in chief of the military and he fucked that up too.
Come to think of it what has he done right?
The entire federal bureaucracy. I don’ think so.
The executive branch is a 1/3 coequal branch.
Are you trying to out stupid Drumwater?
It’s a big job but I gotta tell ya, you’re coming close.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 2:17 pmBaracky “the buck doesn’t stop here” continues to lie and to change his positions, and his followers change their opinions in perfect synchronization.
Wonderful to watch.
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 2:25 pmNot any more…
Not since Barry threw his happy ass under the bus. Before then, he was on Barry’s religious control panel (or whetever it was called), not to mention his “friend and spiritual mentor” and the married who married he and Michelle and baptized the Obama kinder. he was responsible for the title of one of his books.
But some of those views became embarrassing for Barry, and he got flushed.
So much for Jerry Wright.
How about the guy who was head of his VeeP search committee? Guess he doesn’t speak for the Obama campaign, either. Not since he embarrassed Obama.
Or the “middle east adviser” Robert Malley, who got dumped when it was revealed that he had been meeting with Hamas. Oops! Another one under the bus…
But wait, there’s more! High-level-turned-“informal” advisor Jim Johnson got dumped after the mortgage lender scandal broke. Suddenly, he’s a radioactive leper to the Obama campaign.
All those campaign advisers and spokespersons who weren’t actually speaking for Obama don’t count anyway; it only matters what the candidate himself says, right?
Oh, but the President is responsible for every fucking PFC with a green ID card, right?
What have you seen to give you any indication that Obama would be so Truman-esque if he wins? That requires character, and with his actions, he shows he has none.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 2:34 pmDrumwater, remember, with Baracky, the buck stops with someone else – anybody else, please!
I wonder what Hillary is thinking now? “I shoulda stayed in just a few more weeks until fratboy imploded.”
steve miller (724340) — 7/4/2008 @ 2:38 pmWhat have you seen to give you any indication that Obama would be so Truman-esque if he wins?
He is going to withdraw the troops from Iraq.
McCain is going to stay the same failed course when there is nothing to “win”.
That’s $12 billion a month saved. A big deal to me.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 2:38 pmI don’t recommend feeding trolls. jharp has all the characteristics of one and seems impervious to reason. We had such a problem at Festering Swamp and it finally got taken care of. Patterico has been pretty good about it here so I imagine he has his eye on who is dominating the posts with trash talking. I don’t mind debates but #136 shows that any discussion is one way with this guy. I recommend ignoring him although it is tempting to poke a stick in there once in a while. I still recommend the Timmerman book. For example, it has been pointed out that the two people who took the lead in DoJ on the Plame case were Clinton holdovers. Some of this is Bush’s fault for not cleaning house of people who were trying to sabotage his policies, especially at CIA. He left far too many drones in place.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/4/2008 @ 3:54 pm# 67
I keep thinking Hillary’s going to get the last laugh. But the ever-faithful like harp and levi seem to stand by this thug. It’s truly astounding.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/4/2008 @ 4:01 pmUnless he “refines” his position. Again. (As was shown in the very post that started this thread.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 4:03 pmWiggle room.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/4/2008 @ 4:45 pmThat convention is going to be interesting. The wheels of the Obamamobile are starting to come off.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/4/2008 @ 5:10 pm#156
Mike, that’s an excellent link. Hugh Hewitt’s letter to ‘milleniums’ mostly gets a thumbs down, but the responses are great.
The best linkage is from a former Marxist and economist named Fred, who points out that Obama wouldn’t even score a basic security clearance, what with his family background and past activities. Communist/ muslim parents, radical friends and associates, etc. Excellent read from pajamas.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:53 pm#156
Mike, that’s an excellent link. Hugh Hewitt’s letter to ‘milleniums’ mostly gets a thumbs down, but the responses are great.The best linkage is from a former Marxist and economist named Fred, who points out that Obama wouldn’t even score a basic security clearance, what with his family background and past activities. Communist/ muslim parents, radical friends and associates, etc. Excellent read from pajamas.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 7/4/2008 @ 8:53 pm
Just got back from the fireworks and a new poster and visitor here.
You , Vermont Neighbor are a goddam fucking asshole lying jackass.
Fuck you and if I can expect to witness the postings of lying un American propoganda such as this I won’t be back.
“Wouldn’t even pass a security clearance?”
He’s a fucking US Senator.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:16 pmOh, and if my rant warrants being banned, go for it.
It is your loss, not mine.
And just in case you didn’t get the message, go fuck yourself Vermont Neighbor.
And a happy 4th to all.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:20 pmWhy not read the link, little comrade.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:22 pm^ Obviously we’ve got the best and brightest lining up for Obama.
At least love 2008 can look at her candidate critically. You’ve got a big bulging obama in your pocket and it’s not very attractive. (What, too many flip-flops this weekend ? ) Take an aspirin and send Barry a couple tens. It looks like he’s got a lot of ‘splaining in the months ahead.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:29 pmSo? Not all Senators require clearances, especially freshman Senators who don’t hold any important jobs.
And the audience goes wild! The applause is deafening. Grown men weep. Women throw their panties. Can we help you pack? Give you a shove on the way out? Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!
Poor loser. Liar. Coward.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:39 pmWhy not read the link, little comrade.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 7/4/2008 @ 9:22 pm
For the same reason I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
It is right wing, 25%er, redneck, America hating propaganda.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:45 pm#134, jharp
Barney15e (7f9027) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:50 pmWhere I come from, that means he is a lying sack of feces.
What does it mean where you come from?
You’re still here, liar?
How would you know without having read it? You have summarily chosen to ignore the facts, simply because those facts are not complimentary to your world view.
Has your doctor managed to come up with a name for your allergy to facts?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:53 pmjharp:
Indeed you risk banning with language like that. I’ll cut you some slack and assume you were drunk on this July 4th. Consider this a warning.
Patterico (eb1d8f) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:55 pmVermont neighbor,
How is that pajamas media doing by the way. I don’t hear much from them.
Are they making any money or still sucking the teat of giveaways?
As near as I can figure if they’ve got guys like you posting at places like this things ain’t too good.
And just in case you hadn;t heard, Obama isn’t a secret muslim either.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:56 pmjharp,
I bet you would include me in that demographic and I admit I’m right-wing, a 25%er, and redneck. But why do you think I hate America?
DRJ (a0ba79) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:57 pmjharp:
Indeed you risk banning with language like that. I’ll cut you some slack and assume you were drunk on this July 4th. Consider this a warning.
Comment by Patterico — 7/4/2008 @ 9:55 pm
Whatever you have to do, please do. I don’t want to jeopardize your business.
And yes I’ve been in the beer and Vermonter pissed me off.
Warning is acknowledged. And I like posting here and appreciate your offering.
Cheers. And good health to you and your family.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:00 pmHe’s mean when he drinks.
DRJ (a0ba79) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:01 pm#163
You would love Hugh Hewitt’s story. It’s not an attack piece. Go read it. Would love your response.
It points out that Obama has no experience. This, of course, is one of his most attractive traits. Young voters don’t care about experience. If anything, it represents the old guard. The old way of doing things. And with his far left agenda and total lack of understanding in foreign relations and economics, he’ll set this country on a perilous course. You’ll pay much more than that $12B defense cost you keep talking about. You’ll see.
You. Will. See.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:03 pm#167
Oh. Obama’s not a secret Muslim. He sure shoves ’em out of the way at his photo ops.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:06 pm“and I admit I’m right-wing, a 25%er, and redneck. But why do you think I hate America?”
To be brief and I gotta step away.
For supporting Torture, warrantless wiretaps, invading and occupying a country that was no threat, outing undercover CIA agents, free speech zones, imprisoning American citizens with no charges indefintitley.
Ther;’ more but I gotta go.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:06 pmYou always have to go.
Drunk and mannerful.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:13 pm“He’s mean when he drinks.”
DRJ – I think he is stupid when he drinks, but that he only drinks from time to time. Like from the time he wakes up until the time he passes out at night, hence the unreadability and incoherence of his comments. Sober, rational people don’t think like that, or at least they shouldn’t.
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:26 pmHe only drinks two times a day – daytime and nighttime.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:39 pmYou’re a liar.
already proven that this didn’t happen.
Such a lack of a threat that fifteen sovereign nations called it a threat, on more than a dozen occasions. That makes you a liar.
This was the undercover agent with the CIA parking pass and the Georgetown cocktail party circuit credentials? The one who had been outed by Aldrich Ames? The same one who admitted making out with a married man on their first date and telling him what she did for a living? The one who was actually outed by Robert Novak?
Such as the one being instituted in Denver for the DNC?
Two lies for the price of one.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 10:49 pmVoting rich and living poor. The wingnut base.
Wow. As opposed, I guess, to voting poor and living off others’ riches. That’s the moonbat base.
Demented (676ff5) — 7/5/2008 @ 4:58 amHe only drinks two times a day – daytime and nighttime.
Drumwaster – Only on days ending in “y”.
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 7/5/2008 @ 7:24 amLevi & jharp–
Even Tom Hayden – Mr. Jane Fonda himself – thinks Obama is disingenuous:
“From the beginning, Obama’s symbolic 2002 position on Iraq has been very promising, reinforced again and again by his campaign pledge to “end the war” in 2009.
But that pledge also has been laced with loopholes all along, caveats that the mainstream media and his opponents [excepting Bill Richardson] have ignored or avoided until now.”
You can read it all at: No Retreat: If you Want to Win, Stop the War! Barack at Risk
Horatio (55069c) — 7/5/2008 @ 8:17 amDRJ – In my experience, when people drink, their true self comes out. In harpy’s case, it is not really nice.
JD (a6d772) — 7/5/2008 @ 8:22 amThe “loopholes” are wiggle room. That way, he can sound sincere even when he is completely insincere.
steve miller (724340) — 7/5/2008 @ 9:30 am#165, for harp
It’s just crazy how the Obamatrons won’t listen to feedback from their own members. Like Tom Hayden.
B-ho is a prop, a slick creation molded by the nastiest branch of the left, that clusterfuck out of Chicago. Obama has been gaming the system and pimping his way up the ladder since the early 90s. That’s a fact, jack. Said he wouldn’t leave the IL Senate during his term. Spent the whole time on taxpayer money planning his run. Disingenuous… a kind description.
Louis Farrakhan and Obama’s other political extremists make Karl Rove look like a babe in the woods. When any Muslim leader condemns Obama for his conversion to Christianity (and his betrayal as an apostate), only then will I believe he’s severed ties with radical Muslims. Until then? His actions and inner circle will define the true candidate.
Please come back after your hangover subsides. I want to read more explanations like wiggle room.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/5/2008 @ 10:21 amVN – Now we also know that Certificate of Live Birth posted at Daily Kos is a fake and the Obama campaign lifted it from there and put it on Fight The Smears (?). Kos claimed he got it from the campaign.
So now you’ve got Kos lying, which is nothing new, and the campaign fabricating shit, plus we still don’t know if Obama is really a U.S. citizen and eligible to run for President.
This is really fucked up.
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 7/5/2008 @ 10:54 amLet me see if I have this: Kos says he got it from the campaign, and the campaign says they got it from Kos?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:05 amheh. Hillary is getting happy’r and happy’r!
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:10 amAt first read, one may think the NYT may be slowly getting a clue….today’s op-ed,
“And for Mr. Obama, who recently changed his positions on campaign finance and a wiretapping law, the suggestion that he was also changing course on a central premise of his candidacy holds particular peril.”
But then one reads further and realizes, of course not,
“…-Republicans are now trying to put Mr. Obama on the defensive.
They are trying to put him in the political equivalent of a double bind: painting him as impervious to the changing reality on the ground if he sticks to his plan, and as a flip-flopper if he alters it to reflect changing circumstances.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/us/politics/04policy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Dana (416b2c) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:22 amVN,
“Obama for his conversion to Christianity (and his betrayal as an apostate), only then will I believe he’s severed ties with radical Muslims.”
You know as well as I that Obama never has been, never was, and isn’t a Muslim.
And you know what? I’d vote for him even it he was. The last guy we elected who claimed to get him guidance from God got 4,100 killed, 25,000 wounded, and blew through $4 trillion with NOTHING to show for it.
I’ll be happy to engage you when you post something worthwhile.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:24 am“Let me see if I have this: Kos says he got it from the campaign, and the campaign says they got it from Kos?”
Right, plus it’s a fake.
Judgement you can trust.
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:29 amThe madrassa he attended in Indonesia would disagree with you. Not top mention the Catholic school he attended (where his religion was listed as “Muslim”.
His father, a Nigerian Muslim, and his half-brother, another Nigerian Muslim, would also disagree with you, but thanks for showing your utter ignorance on this subject.
Once again.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:30 am“The last guy we elected who claimed to get him guidance from God got 4,100 killed, 25,000 wounded, and blew through $4 trillion with NOTHING to show for it.”
jharp – I know we’re still paying for the mistakes of Carter’s disastrous Presidency, but I don’t remember this part. As usual, I think you’ve got your facts wrong or are making them up.
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:33 amHey, you’re the one voting for him…
Those are the statements they have made.
Kos says he got his copy from the Obama campaign.
The Obama campaign says they got their copy from DailyKos.
Questions have been raised about its authenticity. Obama could settle it instantly by releasing an official copy. (I got mine within two weeks, in order to get a passport.) Why hasn’t he?
I could also ask when Kerry is going to release his entire military records, as he promised to do more than three and a half years ago.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:34 amSorry, daley, I was talking at harpie, not you…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:34 am“I could also ask when Kerry is going to release his entire military records, as he promised to do more than three and a half years ago.”
Drumwaster – Good luck with that. He also said he was going to kick the Swift Boat Veterans asses and settle the matter once and for all last time he brought it up I believe in 2006. It’s been crickets ever since.
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:37 amBlack Jesus, harp. You really don’t know anything about the candidates, do you ? Read this and cast your destructive vote in November. What the hell, your taxes paid for that much.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/5/2008 @ 12:21 pmVN,
I don’t know what you are trying to get at here but your posts are complete fabrications.
You got any evidence?
I think you are a secret Muslim. And I know so because a Madrassa I’ve contacted said so.
jharp (00ec6a) — 7/5/2008 @ 12:28 pmIrony so thick and creamy I want to dip my ba… er, bathe, in it…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 12:37 pmDrumwaster, you’re not alluding to our poster’s penchance for confusing alcohol-induced visions with fact, are you?
steve miller (724340) — 7/5/2008 @ 1:37 pmUm, h. jarp
(Sorry, but I’m tired from your attempts at logic.) The WSJ printed a few days ago a piece asking O! to embrace his Muslim roots.
His childhood…his father; the 1/2 brother; his grade school and early influences like Frank Marshall Davis… up to and including Farrakhan and the other campaigners. All have Muslim or communist ties. The only thing you can hit me with now is it’s up to me to justify my argument that his wife is a race-baiting America-hating anti-white black radical.
I’m having an Evian on the rocks today. And you ?
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/5/2008 @ 1:57 pmToday Baracky is saying he’s surprised his innocent words about changing his mind twice in the same day caused such a stir.
This from a guy that repeats the endless lie that John McCain wants a 100-year war.
It’s priceless.
steve miller (724340) — 7/5/2008 @ 3:37 pmSteve, Barack is trying to change the subject of course. And his scrambling McCain’s words and intent is an example of the SAME OLD/SAME OLD. His was supposed to be the campaign of change… no dirty politics. Liar.
And j. sharp. Did you realize last night that I was paraphrasing someone from Mike K’s link ? The comment about B-ho’s security credentials was posted by a guy named Fred (the former Marxist and economist). Read that link, sharp. As of last night it had no almost snark or anger. It was pretty interesting. All the responses agree that Hugh Hewitt missed the mark. His essay didn’t convince any millenium voter to avoid the danger of a (D) vote in November.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/5/2008 @ 6:09 pmIt is a real comedy to watch jharp try to redefine facts to fit his own ignorance.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/5/2008 @ 7:50 pmBacktrack Barack is learning that when he makes up his policies out of thin air, people will question his ability to think and reason on his feet.
steve miller (724340) — 7/6/2008 @ 10:22 amThese got deleted from a jharp thread hijack and I think they are too important to leave deleted…so I’ll post them here, since they have to do with the Iraq War.
The surge is working, and even the London Times admits it:
Al-Qaeda is driven from Mosul bastion after bloody last stand
Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda
Paul (0ea0cf) — 7/6/2008 @ 3:36 pmharpster must be stamping his tiny feet in frustration right now.
steve miller (724340) — 7/6/2008 @ 3:45 pmThe key thing about Backtrack Barack v. McCain is not that either changes his mind – it’s that one of them claims to be the “smart” one and the “enlightened” one – and that same one claims to know for sure exactly what is true for all time – until, of course, it becomes inconvenient and he needs to throw a friend under a bus or he needs to shift his position to meet the latest poll numbers. Yeah, Backtrack Barack – it’s a fitting name.
More flip-flops than a California shoe store.
steve miller (724340) — 7/6/2008 @ 3:48 pmNice little flip sound. You nailed that one. Flippy flip, flop doodle.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/6/2008 @ 4:20 pmRe #204. Waiting for monsieur harp to click on the links …
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/6/2008 @ 4:24 pmSadly, harpster has gone. He doesn’t like it when Patterico tries to enforce the groundrules.
steve miller (724340) — 7/6/2008 @ 4:25 pmHarp, harp. Y’ there ?
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/6/2008 @ 4:25 pmdamn crickets
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/6/2008 @ 4:27 pmI don’t know about you, Vermont Neighbor, but I weary of arguing with a parrot.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 7/6/2008 @ 4:30 pmBHO has done it again. It’s amazing that we took his words as, well… mere words.
This from the originator of the campaign promise that words matter.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/6/2008 @ 4:32 pmThere’s something a little too clever about monsieur. Claiming innocence like he does and then playing by the rules about every 30 posts.
I think he knows exchange rates, maybe through a small check-cashing business. He probably runs Harpy’s Check Cashing While-U-Wait. Near the waffle place.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/6/2008 @ 4:42 pmstraight talk from the gut.
divinely placed leaders??. does the future of mankind depend on “black cock and white pussy”
From: “adam rosenblatt”
abraham, rabi jesus trotsky che gevarra and adolph hitler what ho. is it genetics in the nature versus nurture debate. and what about checks and balances in the democratic model. that doesnt work either. abraham had it right but today mankinds very survival is in question.
they didnt have hi-tech in the old chinese and israelite way of being.
yes hi-tech has tipped the balance and democracy has become very dangerous. benign dicatators in the chinese mentius model perhaps.
no. basically we are all conditioned slavering pavlovian dogs and only an empty pocket and stomach and the high price of oil will change things for better or worse as out grandchildren sink beneath the sea. regards adam rosenblatt
adam rosenblatt (a696c7) — 7/6/2008 @ 9:13 pmI don’t think he ever played by the rules.
He was just excited to get some attention.
Good thing his mom hasn’t cut off his internet access yet. What else would he do with his time? Spend it in Second Life?
steve miller (724340) — 7/6/2008 @ 11:05 pm