So when Barack Hussein Obama changes his mind on Iraq will Janett still support him? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

dude1394 · 07-03-2008, 04:43 PM

Of course she will as she should. But it will be interesting to see the gnashing of teeth and the spinning that will go on in the liberal camp.

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/...es2/021235.php

Quote:

HERE COMES THE PIVOT!

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) promised primary voters a swift withdrawal from Iraq, in clear language still on his website: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month.

A top Obama adviser said he is not “wedded” to a specific timeline, and Obama said Thursday he plans to “refine” his plan.

You could see this one coming. Hmm. With all these changes, Obama's morphing into a candidate I could support!

jefelump · 07-03-2008, 09:32 PM

Haven't we read a few times on this chat board that Obama has already said he's not really going to immediately bring the troops home? He's not the Anti-War candidate, any more than John McCain is. I think Obama is slowly trying to break it to his constituency, now that he has the nomination in the bag. It was a great slogan for the primaries, but we're beyond that now.

dude1394 · 07-03-2008, 09:59 PM

You are kidding yourself he IS the anti-war candidate and has beat clinton up all during the primaries on it.

If he changes his tune on this, this is a collossal flip-flop. It won't make any difference to the true-believers but it's a complete turnaround. It's the right call for the country, but it just shows his inner strength (or lack of it).

What about "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month and have all of our brigades out of iraq within 16months" is unclear?

jefelump · 07-03-2008, 10:04 PM

The very next paragraph of the article, where you pulled that 16months quote:

"Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month."

He would LIKE us all to believe he's the anti-war candidate. That is what got him through the primaries. Now he is paving the way for what you and I agree is going to be a collossal flip-flop. He will make John Kerry look consistent.

dude1394 · 07-03-2008, 10:08 PM

What he is, is someone without core values and will do and say absolutely anything to get elected.

But he IS the anti-war candidate, the new mcgovern, it's in his DNA, the only reason he'll flip-flop is to get elected. He knows that his supporters have no place to go, however this is one of the reasons that I wanted him versus clinton as the dem candidate. He'll show the country his lack of convictions, it will be difficult for serious people to put him in charge.

jefelump · 07-03-2008, 10:10 PM

You may be right on that. It sounds a lot like Bill Clinton... say anything to get elected... only Obama does it with finesse.

dude1394 · 07-03-2008, 10:15 PM

I think barack hussein obama had to show a lot of cards to beat clinton in the primary. I don't recall who clinton beat in the primary but it certainly wasn't as publicised or as long as bho did.

Also clinton was never as leftist as bho is anyway.

rabbitproof · 07-03-2008, 11:38 PM

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were the anti-war guys. Not Barack.

Everybody else is more or less, a little left here, a little right here.. but >50% the same.

Interesting piece on primary Barack vs. winning the center Barack:

http://www.slate.com/id/2194758/

jefelump · 07-04-2008, 12:25 AM

Very interesting article... would be cool to see a similar analysis on McCain.

chumdawg · 07-04-2008, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Interesting piece on primary Barack vs. winning the center Barack:

http://www.slate.com/id/2194758/

Nothing you can say about that except to admire the tactics. As has been evident all along, somebody over in the Obama camp sure knows what he is doing...

dude1394 · 07-04-2008, 12:57 AM

When you are right, it doesn't take long to respond nor sophisticated "refinements".

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...f-89998d369ddf

Quote:

"Since announcing his campaign in 2007, the central premise of Barack Obama's candidacy was his commitment to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq immediately. He campaigned in Iowa, New Hampshire and across the country reaffirming this pledge to the American people.

"Today, Barack Obama reversed that position proving once again that his words do not matter. He has now adopted John McCain's position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind when the facts on the ground dictate it. Indeed, the facts have changed because of the success of the surge that John McCain advocated for years and Barack Obama opposed in a position that put politics ahead of country.

"Now that Barack Obama has changed course and proven his past positions to be just empty words, we would like to congratulate him for accepting John McCain's principled stand on this critical national security issue. If he had visited Iraq sooner or actually had a one-on-one meeting with General Petraeus, he would have changed his position long ago."

Flacolaco · 07-04-2008, 01:35 AM

If only any of this meant a damn thing to people* who are "predisposed" to vote for him anyway....

If only they read the news...or could afford to watch it....or see it on the internet.

chumdawg · 07-04-2008, 01:55 AM

That's a pretty slick response by McCain. Well done. The first two sentences of the second paragraph are wide open invitations to justifiable rebuttals, but still and all, nice work.

dude1394 · 07-04-2008, 09:59 AM

Barack Hussein Obama needs to be careful here. When the LATimes is calling you out for being confused and for the "smell of mendacity", then you may have some trouble brewing. How delicious to see the MSM not covering someone's back as usual.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2355936.story

Quote:

FARGO, N.D. -- Barack Obama struggled Thursday to explain his plan to end the war in Iraq, calling a rare do-over news conference to insist that he was not softening his campaign pledge to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months of becoming president.

"That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I have not searched for maneuvering room with respect to that position," he said.

But as stated he IS the anti-war candidate. He's also starting to sound like something else however, a man of little conviction.

Quote:

Then Obama reemerged. He looked and sounded frustrated. "We're going to try this again," he said. "Apparently, I was not clear enough this morning."

This time, he forcefully laid out his withdrawal proposal.

"Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war," he said. "On 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."

Underdog · 07-04-2008, 10:12 AM

Barack Hussein Obama... Barack Hussein Obama... Barack Hussein Obama...

Kinda like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Talib Kweli? (I like those guys...)

Better be careful, Dude - you're making Obama more identifiable to me (and I didn't really care about him before)... You need to remember the rule, "no press is bad press" (especially in an election year) - and you've never misspelled his name!

dude1394 · 07-04-2008, 12:41 PM

And when most liberal senator in the country (Barack Hussein Obama) loses tha liberal NYTimes...you may be in trouble with Janett.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/op...in&oref=slogin

Quote:

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

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.

Janett_Reno · 07-04-2008, 01:12 PM

The false hoods will not help. Things that the voters remember and things voters care about are things like the economy. Something McCain says he doesn't know anything about. So he says give millons or billons in tax breaks to exon/mobile to trickle down. Now how old is McCain again?

Does the neocons care anything about the economy, infrastructure, or making the usa a slave to China? Not a chance, that is no concern to them. I spoke to a republican yesterday and his job is not secure and he has been there 25 years. It is many things he is upset with the neocons about but he said the most embarrasing and bad thing these neocons are doing, is borrowing, borrowing and borrowing more money from China and we are a slave now to China. He says soon, his job will probably be in China.

He said McCain looks older than old, confused, doesn't know squat and doesn't care about the economy and went from an Independent to a neocon and is a spitting image of Bush/Cheney. This republican said he can not wait untill he cast his vote and it was for Obama, a DEMOCRAT. Look at Montana, a red state where Obama has the lead over McCain.

In the end dude, you, Rove, McCain, W, Cheney or Ramsfield is not going to scare the American people calling Obama "black racial names", using his name to scare people, and even on things like Iraq, Afganastan, Obama will beat McCain. As far as where people are hurting, jobs, healthcare, infrastructure, oil, taxes, making the American people more safe, all these things favor Obama. So about all you can attack on is he is black, he has a funny sounding name and just keep on and see where it get's you.

When Obama becomes president, i do not want you to run and hide and leave this message board because you and i are going to have alot of fun chats in here. I apprecaite you being my biggest fan and you will get to enjoy me and a Democartic president soon and i want you to get to enjoy it and stay on board here.

The neocons want war in Iran and are going to do all they can to start one. I guess McCain could always call the draft back up. Keep us in three wars. Obama will do what is best for the country and neocons do not control him and he will do what is best, not a string being pulled and him a puppet, like we have now or what McCain will be.

You know where my vote is going. The same man you voted for, Obama.

dude1394 · 07-04-2008, 01:19 PM

Right on cue, and the content is just as nuanced as I expected....And completely off-topic as well.

Ninkobei · 07-04-2008, 01:30 PM

So, as long as we're poking fun at poking fun at fictional names, lets try a couple of McCain names:
John Leguizamo McCain
John Manson McCain
John Adolf McCain

all of those are about as clever as the Barack Hussein jokes...

and Barack's real name is...

dude1394 · 07-04-2008, 01:33 PM

Might be as funny, if they were actually his name.

Can't use the guys christian name anymore either. Dang...this guy's going to be hard to beat.

You might want to check out his birth certficate.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ertificate.jpg

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.sha...ertificate.jpg

Underdog · 07-04-2008, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

Billy Dee for President! (needs the mustache & a frosty can of Colt.45...)

rabbitproof · 07-04-2008, 01:37 PM

This is pretty petty. What's John McCain's middle name? And how is either middle name relevant to fixing all the issues in America?

Underdog · 07-04-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

This is pretty petty. What's John McCain's middle name? And how is either middle name relevant to fixing all the issues in America?

Have I introduced you to my friend, Xenophobia?

wmbwinn · 07-04-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

You are kidding yourself he IS the anti-war candidate and has beat clinton up all during the primaries on it.

If he changes his tune on this, this is a collossal flip-flop. It won't make any difference to the true-believers but it's a complete turnaround. It's the right call for the country, but it just shows his inner strength (or lack of it).

What about "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month and have all of our brigades out of iraq within 16months" is unclear?

Truth is that Jefelump is correct. Obama is a master spin artist. If you go back (even here in this board), you can find several quotes in several news articles where Obama admitted (when pressured by a skilled journalist) that he had no intention of doing anything short of succeeding in Iraq and staying there as long as needed. His spin back then was that he had better ideas about how to succeed faster and get out sooner.

Obama is whatever you want him to be.

Obama is the Senator from Illinois. Chicago is in Illinois (for the geographically challenged). Chicago is the seat of the anti gun laws that paralleled the bans in Washington DC that were just ruled unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court decision was news, Obama was asked about. He very skillfully danced and left the American public with no idea how he felt about the Supreme Court decision. Look at the Rasmusen poll. Roughly 70% of Republicans thought Obama was upset. Roughly 70% of the Democrats thought he agreed with the decision (evidence of the stupidity of Democrats AND evidence of his ability to sing and dance). The Independents are split 50-50.

So, in conclusion, there is a Supreme Court decision that is squarely opposed to the law in his home state. And, America has no idea how he feels about it....

Obama runs as the anti war while admitting he has no plan to withdraw...
Obama runs as the gun control advocate while waltzing with the NRA fans...
Obama is whatever you think he is. He is generic change.

He is scary.

wmbwinn · 07-04-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Nothing you can say about that except to admire the tactics. As has been evident all along, somebody over in the Obama camp sure knows what he is doing...

Chum, sometimes you scare me too. Are you familiar with a guy named Machiavelli? He wrote a thesis thousands of years ago called "The Prince".

You should research it and return with an essay.

Underdog · 07-04-2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Chum, sometimes you scare me too. Are you familiar with a guy named Machiavelli? He wrote a thesis thousands of years ago called "The Prince".

You should research it and return with an essay.

Thousands of years ago..... in the 1400-1500's!

wmbwinn · 07-04-2008, 02:39 PM

Point to Underdog. I got caught exaggerating again...

the point of my concern for Chumdawg's position is unchanged by pointing out to me exactly when Machiavelli lived.

dude1394 · 07-04-2008, 10:42 PM

rmacomic · 07-04-2008, 11:32 PM

dude, you are starting to come across like the stereotypical Barack hater.

dude1394 · 07-05-2008, 12:37 AM

Nah...just a democrat hater.

But Barack imo isn't a very good candidate. He's way too liberal and way too green. His flip-flopping is showing his lack of core beliefs. I don't see why a politician who is so adept at talking out of both sides of his mouth, shouldn't be called on it.

It's a terrible character flaw for a politician imo. Senators/Congressmen can get by with it, but not POTUS.

wmbwinn · 07-05-2008, 02:27 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080705/...d0AQ3SG2XCw5R4

ST. LOUIS - Barack Obama said Saturday that he was surprised at how the media has "finely calibrated" his recent words on Iraq, and denied that he intends to anything but end the war if he is elected.

[wmbwinn insert: no one more finely calibrates words than Obama and it is disingenious to pretend that he is surprised that the world is listening closely to him.]

"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," the expected Democratic presidential nominee told reporters flying with him to Missouri from Montana. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war."

On Thursday in North Dakota, Obama said that "I'll ... continue to refine my policy" on Iraq after an upcoming trip there. With a promise to end the war the central premise of his candidacy, the Obama campaign has struggled over the past two days to push back against Republicans and others who say his recent statement could be a softening.

In two news conferences on Thursday, Obama said any refinement of his position on Iraq wouldn't be related to his promise to remove combat forces within 16 months of taking office, but rather to the number of troops needed to train Iraqis and fight al-Qaida.

[wmbwinn insert: very clever speech cover up. He is pre-empting himself as he really expects troops to stay a lot longer than 16 months. So, now, he is saying that "combat" troops will leave but "training" troops will stay...]

But he also acknowledged that the 16-month timeline could indeed slip if removing troops risked their safety or Iraqi stability.

[wmbwinn insert: Here he is again explaining ahead of time how he is going to dance later when he backs down from his statement of ending the war in 16 months. He is already dancing his way out of the commitment by telling you ahead of time that the timetable may shift to a longer time period of war involvement "if removing troops risked their safety or Iraqi stability". Note that GW Bush defends the current activity using EXACTLY THE SAME WORDS]

"What's important is to understand the difference between strategy and tactics," he told reporters. "The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are all based on facts and conditions. I am not somebody — unlike George Bush — who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions."Noting that "we want to build on" the lessening of violence in Iraq, he added: "It doesn't change my strategic view that we have to bring our occupation to a close."

[wmbwinn insert: boy can he dance. Not only does he again pre-empt his eventual announcement that we can't end the war in 16 months as he expects to re-eval the facts on the ground to determine "if removing troops risked their safety or Iraqi stability". And, then in the same paragraph he finds an opportunity to slam GW Bush... very skilled speaker.]

He said he didn't misspeak in his comments earlier in the week and suggested the media and critics read unintended significance into the remarks.

[wmbwinn insert: yes, anyone who thinks that Obama actually said something of content must have misunderstood him. He only dances and sings.]

"I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured," Obama said. "I wasn't saying anything that I hadn't said before."

[wmbwinn insert: Exactly. Finely he says something completely honest. He has said in the past that he would stay in Iraq as long as needed to be successful BUT that he thought he could be successful faster and get out sooner (nice dance to appease both sides of the question).]

Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require consultations with military commanders and, possibly, flexibility.

[wmbwinn insert: yes he has. And this is why I repeatedly say that Obama as president would have been no different than Hillary as president. Both would stay and fight in Iraq and not pull out until the job is done.

So... why not vote for McCain? If your goal for voting for Obama is an end to the Iraq war and you actually believe he will end the war faster.... Then you like the way he dances]

dude1394 · 07-05-2008, 07:08 PM

Can't wait for that one to fly across the world if the messiah is elected.

Quote:

"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," That I would invade Pakistan to go get bin laden? Now who would take that to mean that I would invade Pakistan to go get bin laden? I mean really.

jefelump · 07-06-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080705/...d0AQ3SG2XCw5R4

ST. LOUIS - Barack Obama said Saturday that he was surprised at how the media has "finely calibrated" his recent words on Iraq, and denied that he intends to anything but end the war if he is elected.

[wmbwinn insert: no one more finely calibrates words than Obama and it is disingenious to pretend that he is surprised that the world is listening closely to him.]

"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," the expected Democratic presidential nominee told reporters flying with him to Missouri from Montana. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war."

On Thursday in North Dakota, Obama said that "I'll ... continue to refine my policy" on Iraq after an upcoming trip there. With a promise to end the war the central premise of his candidacy, the Obama campaign has struggled over the past two days to push back against Republicans and others who say his recent statement could be a softening.

In two news conferences on Thursday, Obama said any refinement of his position on Iraq wouldn't be related to his promise to remove combat forces within 16 months of taking office, but rather to the number of troops needed to train Iraqis and fight al-Qaida.

[wmbwinn insert: very clever speech cover up. He is pre-empting himself as he really expects troops to stay a lot longer than 16 months. So, now, he is saying that "combat" troops will leave but "training" troops will stay...]

But he also acknowledged that the 16-month timeline could indeed slip if removing troops risked their safety or Iraqi stability.

[wmbwinn insert: Here he is again explaining ahead of time how he is going to dance later when he backs down from his statement of ending the war in 16 months. He is already dancing his way out of the commitment by telling you ahead of time that the timetable may shift to a longer time period of war involvement "if removing troops risked their safety or Iraqi stability". Note that GW Bush defends the current activity using EXACTLY THE SAME WORDS]

"What's important is to understand the difference between strategy and tactics," he told reporters. "The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are all based on facts and conditions. I am not somebody — unlike George Bush — who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions."Noting that "we want to build on" the lessening of violence in Iraq, he added: "It doesn't change my strategic view that we have to bring our occupation to a close."

[wmbwinn insert: boy can he dance. Not only does he again pre-empt his eventual announcement that we can't end the war in 16 months as he expects to re-eval the facts on the ground to determine "if removing troops risked their safety or Iraqi stability". And, then in the same paragraph he finds an opportunity to slam GW Bush... very skilled speaker.]

He said he didn't misspeak in his comments earlier in the week and suggested the media and critics read unintended significance into the remarks.

[wmbwinn insert: yes, anyone who thinks that Obama actually said something of content must have misunderstood him. He only dances and sings.]

"I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured," Obama said. "I wasn't saying anything that I hadn't said before."

[wmbwinn insert: Exactly. Finely he says something completely honest. He has said in the past that he would stay in Iraq as long as needed to be successful BUT that he thought he could be successful faster and get out sooner (nice dance to appease both sides of the question).]

Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require consultations with military commanders and, possibly, flexibility.

[wmbwinn insert: yes he has. And this is why I repeatedly say that Obama as president would have been no different than Hillary as president. Both would stay and fight in Iraq and not pull out until the job is done.

So... why not vote for McCain? If your goal for voting for Obama is an end to the Iraq war and you actually believe he will end the war faster.... Then you like the way he dances]

Very good analysis of the article.

Here is an article I found today from the BBC. It shows the "dancing" of both candidates, or flip-flops/U-turns of both.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7474558.stm

Summary of McCain:

Quote:

Mr McCain's U-turns have mostly increased his appeal to the Republican Party's base, placing him on a rightward trajectory.

Summary of Obama:

Quote:

Barack Obama has been performing a more traditional manoeuvre: running to the left during the primaries, when party activists need to be wooed, then shifting to the centre once the nomination is clinched.

The difference I see here is McCain is doing a "U-turn" to secure his base he has angered over the years. Obama is doing a "U-turn" to win the middle, since his base is already secure.

McCain Flip-Flops:

Quote:

Immigration

Last year, Mr McCain was one of the key backers of President Bush's plan for "comprehensive immigration reform", which would have created "paths to citizenship" for illegal immigrants, while investing more money in border security.

The plan was very unpopular with the Republican rank-and-file, and Senate Republicans succeeded in blocking the scheme.

During the primaries, Mr McCain announced that his immigration focus would be on securing America's borders, rather than on giving illegal immigrants the chance to become US citizens.

"I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift," McCain told reporters in November 2007.

"I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."

Christian right

Another McCain, quote, shift was in his relationship with the religious right of his party.

During his 2000 bid for the Republican nomination, relations between Mr McCain and Christian Coalition founder Jerry Falwell were notoriously fractious.

The Arizona senator memorably described Mr Falwell and fellow members of the religious right as "agents of intolerance".

But in 2006, ahead of his second presidential run, Mr McCain delivered the commencement address at Mr Falwell's Liberty University, after which he attended a small private party hosted by his former political adversary.

Interrogation rules

More recently, Mr McCain angered his former allies in the political centre by supporting a bill exempting the CIA from following the same rules on interrogation as the US Army.

Guantanamo

Mr McCain was one of the most prominent Republican voices opposed to the Bush administration's detention policy in Guantanamo Bay.

But when the Supreme Court recently ruled that Guantanamo detainees should have access to US courts, Mr McCain described it as "one of the worst decisions in the history of the country".

Oil drilling

Since sewing up the Republican nomination in March, Mr McCain - one of only a few prominent Republicans to accept the argument that human activity is causing climate change - has dropped his previous objection to lifting the ban on oil exploration off the coast of the US.

Obama Flip-Flops:

Quote:

Campaign finance

Last month he announced that he would be rejecting public financing for his campaign, and would instead rely on private donations.

The McCain camp accused Mr Obama of "going back on his word", although Mr Obama insisted that he had never made a promise to stay in the public finance system.

Surveillance programme

Mr Obama also raised eyebrows when he announced that he would not be opposing a bill going through Congress giving immunity to telephone companies involved in the Bush administration's controversial warrantless wiretap programme.

His decision angered many of his supporters on the left, who accused him of going back on his 2007 pledge "to support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies".

Gun control

When the Supreme Court decided to overturn Washington DC's handgun ban, Mr Obama declared that the ruling "provide[d] much-needed guidance", despite having previously argued (in a written answer that he says was drafted by an aide and which he had not approved) that the ban was constitutional.

Iraq

Withdrawing troops from Iraq has long been one of the central planks of Mr Obama's campaign, and was something that set him apart from other Democratic candidates running for the party's presidential nomination.

Since his campaign began, however, conditions in Iraq have changed, violence has reduced, and some commentators have suggested that Mr Obama's position is out of date.

Mr Obama himself has announced that he plans to visit Iraq, where he will make "a thorough assessment" which could lead him to "refine" his policy.

Some critics have seized on this as an indication that Mr Obama is laying the groundwork for a change in position.

Free trade

Mr Obama recently hinted to Fortune magazine that his strong anti-free trade rhetoric during the primaries may not be reflected in his actual trade policy should he become president.

His remarks are a neat summation of the pressures and temptations that lead politicians to shift their positions during the process of running for office.

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he said.

"Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself."

wmbwinn · 07-06-2008, 07:52 PM

nice follow up post, Jefelump. I find it might interesting (and condemning) that we have had no Democrat defenses or apologists respond to these flip flops.

As I dislike McCain ALMOST as much as I dislike Obama, I have not really cared that McCain flips and flops like a fish.

But, I know a lot of people think very highly of Mr. Obama (soon to be Mr. President Obama). So, I thought that there might be some response from the left.

But, all I hear are the sounds of crickets...

The silence is condemning...

dude1394 · 07-14-2008, 07:28 PM

So now the 16months is a "goal" whereas as little as July 4th he was re-affirming that it was a solid pledge.

What's a looney leftie to do??
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...hp/rubin/15781

Quote:

Toward the end of a painfully long exchange, Tom Brokaw finally got this out of Sen. Claire McCaskill on Meet The Press:

MR. BROKAW: But, let me be clear about this, he says he’ll listen to commanders on the ground. He’s going there. But before he goes there, he says, “The day after I’m inaugurated, I’ll have Joint Chiefs in the office with instructions to get them out in 16 months.”

SEN. McCASKILL: But…

MR. BROKAW: So the real question is why even go if you know that you want to do that in advance?

SEN. McCASKILL: Well, of course. He, he has a goal of 16 months, but obviously, the most important thing in getting out…

MR. BROKAW: But that could stretch.

SEN. McCASKILL: …is to do it carefully. It–I mean, obviously, a goal is a goal, and he’s been very clear that that’s a goal. He’s been very clear that he wants to be careful and reasonable about the way–in fact, his phrase is, “I want to be the opposite of what we were when we went in. We were reckless and careless when we went in. We didn’t plan.” And by the way, there is–talk about a shifting position, I mean, John McCain used to be very positive about George Bush’s leadership in Iraq.

MR. BROKAW: Mm-hmm.

SEN. McCASKILL: As he gets closer to this presidential election, he was not as positive. And, and I hope we have a chance to transition back to the economy for a minute…

MR. BROKAW: We will.

MR. BROKAW: But for–just so that we can clarify, the 16 months is his goal, not a promise to the American people?

SEN. McCASKILL: Sixteen months is his goal. It would be irresponsible for a commander in chief to set in stone a date. But he believes, based on the best of military advice that he has gotten, that one to two brigades a month is reasonable. And I believe that that is his commitment to the American people, and he will keep that commitment to the American people.

wmbwinn · 07-14-2008, 08:41 PM

Obama will definitely end the war as soon as the war is over (as defined by the Generals on the ground as to when our goals have been met).

chumdawg · 07-15-2008, 01:25 AM

Quote:

SEN. McCASKILL: Sixteen months is his goal. It would be irresponsible for a commander in chief to set in stone a date.

What is unreasonable about this?

DirkFTW · 07-15-2008, 10:48 AM

Why not just have the goal be Day 2 of the next presidential term?

wmbwinn · 07-15-2008, 06:11 PM

Quote:
SEN. McCASKILL: Sixteen months is his goal. It would be irresponsible for a commander in chief to set in stone a date.

Chumdawg:
What is unreasonable about this?

------------------------

nothing is unreasonable about this. As a matter of fact, Obama sounds just like GW Bush, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain now. Only, Obama is couching his answers in words that appease the left.

It appears that Obama agrees that we have to succeed. We have to meet the goals on the gound per the evaluations of the Generals there. When we meet those goals, Obama will withdraw our combat troops leaving the training/leadership/technology/air support units behind just like in Afghanistan.

It appears that Obama is quite reasonable on this.

Problem is that Obama is talking from both sides of his mouth. He is promising a retreat/withdrawal to satisfy the Left while at the same time admitting that the retreat/withdrawal is contingent on success (and therefore the retreat/withdrawal won't really happen in 16 months).

I think it is evidence that Obama is not stupid. I also think it is evidence that Obama's only goal is to get votes. What he says has nothing to do with his policy goals. He says what he needs to say to appease the group he is talking to. What he will actually do is unknown beyond a good study of his brief Senate history.

GuerillaBlack · 07-15-2008, 06:13 PM

I have a question dude, do you use John McCain's middle name when typing online, or out speaking about him? I doubt it.