“I’m not really an Obama supporter. I like most of these changes. These seem like rational, real-world, pragmatic positions, rather than the rhetorical idealistic positions held previously.
One example: Iraq – Do you want him to say that regardless of the conditions on the ground he should order an immediate withdrawal, based on the fact that 10-12 months ago he thought that was the proper course of action. Just to save face ? To me, adapting to what has changed in Iraq and the willingness to reconsider his position is a HUGE improvement over GWB, who usually takes a position and never lets go, regardless.
These changes demonstrate adaptibility and maturity. He’s starting to me to look more electable and presidential, rather than an idealogue.”
I never said a candidate shouldn’t be permitted to change his mind and re-assess issues as new facts come to light. Only a fool (Bush comes to mind) will stick to a position even as it turns out to be clearly wrong. And I don’t mind some of the flips, either. Take gun control. I actually have guns, myself, so I obviously welcome his new position on this issue.
But my problem with Obama is these flips came so soon after he cinched the nomination. What new facts have come to light on the ground in Iraq that would necessitate his belief that our troops may stay longer than 16 months? If anything, it *appears* that the Surge is working and Iraq is on the road to being able to police itself. Do I believe this? Nope. But that’s what the media is spinning. The reports of Iraqi violence are down considerably in the past 6 months. So I ask myself: why flip now? Why not flip when a new and frightening wave of violence sweeps the country? And the answer is because Obama is flipping at the behest of others: the Establishment.
My problem with Obama is that he has flipped an EXTRAORDINARY number of times. Seriously, nine flips in 2 months? Why even bother to take a position? I thought we were electing a president, not a mood ring. Maybe he needs to more seriously investigate the facts before taking a position. In any event, I have never seen a candidate flip this much, so fast. It’s astounding.
My biggest problem with Obama is the NATURE of his flips. He has flipped on critical issues that are now life and death, in my opinion. I disagree that these flips reflect “rational, real-world, pragmatic” positions. How is it rational to permit warrantless wiretapping? In what universe is it now acceptable to subvert my civil liberties? This is only rational to a person who has no concept of the importance of the Fourth Amendment or the horrible ramifications of its violation. I strongly urge you not to brush this off. You obviously have no clue where this slippery slope could lead. Here’s a hint: a fascist republic.
And Obama did NOT have to vote this way. He had promised to filibuster, and he folded like a patio chair. Can you imagine any member of the electorate, in a red OR blue state, deciding to vote against Obama because he choose to protect their civil liberties?? It’s ridiculous to think that this move reflects anything other than a favor to the Establishment.
Ditto for his threats against Pakistan. How in the world is this beneficial? Who can possibly think that we have either the (a) global standing to enter another country without permission or (b) the resources to do so? It’s simply inflammatory and dangerous, and I am quite surprised that Obama supporters have consumed so much Kool Aid that they can’t see how this man is now exhibiting signs that we all easily identified in Bush. Obama was supposed to be the candidate of “change”. What “change” does this foreign policy represent?? All voters, both GOP and Dem, are sick and tired of war. All we want now are peace and jobs. Period.
If you think that a candidate has to shred the Constitution and continue this country’s imperialist foreign policy in order to be “electable”, then you must have been very pleased with the 8 years that George Bush has given us.
