On this issue, which involves executive power & constitutional rights, both of which are major concerns to me, yes. It does not bode well for an Obama presidency.



Him, I trust. Obama, not so much and Obama may have the future of these issues in his hands in a few months.

All presidential candidates run to the center after winning the nomination. Sen. Clinton's mistake in the primary was assuming she'd already won.

McCain hugged the right-wing to win the Republican nod and even more so once he did to solidify support. Now he's playing up his independent credentials.

Obama won the Democratic nod by embracing progressives and building infrastructure. Now he's moving to the center to combat McCain.

You don't have to be a wing nut or bleeding-heart liberal to feel disappointed in your candidate.

But at the same time, a clarification of policy or even a change or heart doesn't necessarily mean your candidate is spineless. People learn as they go. Nobody has all the answers, whether you're as old as McCain or as visionary as Obama.

Jox, you posted a short list of some of Obama's changes, so let me counter a much longer list of McCain's complete shifts. I'll highlight some of what I think are the more important ones, but see http://www.alternet.org/election08/90956/?page=entire for the full list.

This isn't where I'd suspect a former POW to stand:Think it's worth talking up McCain's foreign policy experience?Or his illustrious military experience?He talks out of both sides of his mouth.At least he readily admitted he doesn't know jack about the economy... wait, he reneged on that too.Like McCain's promotion of offshore drilling? Better hope he doesn't change his mind again.And he's the man when it comes to immigration issues, right?For many people, just the idea of who may end up sitting on the Supreme Court is enough to decide which candidate to vote for. But where does McCain stand?This is the guy, after all, that's breaking the very campaign finance law he wrote!Talk all you want about Rev. Wright, but don't forget some of the people who McCain changed his mind about: John Hagee, Rod Parsley, Jerry Falwell, Sam and Charles Wyly, Henry Kissinger, Grover Norquist... call that good judgment?

Not Nader either.

Based on things I have seen from him I think he would just be a spinning top of wanting to do good and knee-jerk reactions that just want to be different than what the current administration did - regardless if there was good results. That in the end would put equally bad policies in place that further restrict our personal freedoms and liberites. His fondness of raising taxes is one of those areas.

Based on how Obama has said he would deal with the likes of Iran, and other hostile countries/groups.


Yes, I know that. I think he is doing that to gain some favor with the conservative wing of the GOP (funny because the Bush people are not the Conservative Wing of the GOP). The Bush people are the ones that have most recently won the White House so he consulting with them. Regardless of that, if McCain were elected, I highly doubt you will see many people in the Cabinet or other high ranking positions continue to serve on McCain's staff.

Right, but then you're taking my comment out of context, since I'm clearly saying 'beyond this issue' regarding Obama being most like Hillary.

Feel free to make your points, just don't build a strawman to do it. Especially when you don't need to. ESPECIALLY out of my posts. I don't believe there's anyone in this thread who has anything good to say about the senate bill. Haven't seen anyone on this board for that bill.

Haven't seen anyone defend Obama's vote on that bill either.

All that being said, political hackery and bullshit aside...if McCain had bothered to show up and vote, everyone here knows damn well how he'd have voted.

If Hillary had won the nomination, how do you really think she would have voted? I think her vote would have been different (and just as wrong)...after all she did skip out on voting back in Feb. Of course in the 'what if' game...one never knows, so I could be wrong. But I think if people are at the very least honest with themselves, they know she'd have voted for it.

The real question is, why did Obama vote for it. Personally I think he did so for two reasons. First and foremost, his opposition to it wasn't going to make a bit of difference...it was passing anyway. Second, a vote against it would have caused problems within his party, and pissed off the intelligence community among others. So he made a politically expedient choice in a situation where his stance against wouldn't affect it from being implemented, but could impact him adversely in his political race. He's a politician who made *gasp* a political decision. And one that probably wasn't bad, all in all considering.

Since I'm not a politician I think it sucks, and I think the immunity deal blows, and I have big issues with seeing our liberties further chipped away, which seems the general consensus in the thread (at least now, fortunately. Too many people in this country were BEGGING to give away their freedoms after 9/11, trading their rights for a false sense of security ARGH).

Of course, that's just my opinion. Obama's statement (which you can find online pretty easily) says something different, though I just read it as a justification and a 'it's not so bad'.

_________________

Yup, he is and that is pretty much the point I've always made about him. He is not 'visionary' as Leo claims, he is not for 'change' as everyone seems to claim. He is a just typical politician without alot of experience.

I really don't give a shit how Hillary voted, you brought her into this discussion, not me. I also won't assume to know how she would have voted had she been the nominee, but go right ahead if it makes you feel better.

Everyone has always said that Obama should be judged based on his record. Ok, show me any single area that he has not backpedaled on and where he isn't likely to in the coming days. Give me one really good reason to vote for him that's not "He's not as similar to Bush as McCain"; because guess what? The Democrats have tried to win via the anti- votes repeatedly and it never works. Obama seems to be going down that same losing path, except worse as he's not even running against anyone from the current administration.

Krby, regarding McCain and Bushies...yeah certainly some of them are GOPers who you'd see on ANY top GOP candidate's campaign...but others are not.

Not to get too off track, but I think it's basically this. Everyone knows Rove is a snake. But he's also extremely good at what he does...er well did. He was a successful snake, and it's a town where results matter most.

I think McCain is taking on some of them, even though he *knows* they're snakes for the same reason.

Whether one thinks that's good or bad is a whole other discussion and one that could be quite long hehe. And then whether or not that will make his campaign or administration at all like Bush...is another thing too.

But I think if McCain makes it to the White House, he certainly won't "clean house".

And (and it's a bit OT so I'll prolly drop it here) the other thing I find distasteful about it quite frankly is after all the shit Bush's people did to him, that he's at all cozy with any of them. One can argue it's the politically expediant thing to do blah blah blah...but I'm not sure. Especially with Bush's piss poor rating, and the constant trying to distance himself in the media, seems to me he could easily tell them to go blow...with GOP support no less. Instead he's often appearing like they're buddies, bygones are bygones and all that.

I had respect for him for speaking out against the bullshit Bush pulled with Kerry. I had respect for him not completely tearing his party asunder and going for Bush's throat after some of the dirtiest tactics ever seen in a major election were revealed to have been done by the Bush campaign.

But he pretty much lost all that in his rush to embrace almost everything he once bitched about (Bush, the noveau GOP nutbags, the religious right, etc.)

Anyhoo, sorry for the aside, this thread really isn't about that...but I thought I'd address it.

_________________

Well if your point is to those who somehow believed he was different and would never ever ever act like a ...politician...then. um..okay.

But I don't really know what you mean by 'typical politician'. If you mean 'typical DC dirtbag' then I hardly think that applies to him. We've certainly had other idealistic politicians who've made bad or unpopular choices for the sake of "politics".



Actually she's been mentioned in the thread a bit now. My point being that of the two potential Dem nominees...both would have probably voted for it. Yes, that sucks.



I'm sure someone will take you up on your Pepsi challenge, because they can. I don't really give a fuck how you vote, so I have no interest in wooing you to one side or another. You seem to be mistaking me for an Obama fanboi, I'm not. I do like him, and I'm still voting for him at this point...but I'm not one of the fanbois.

One last thing..."backpedalling". "Flipflopping". God I hate these bullshit terms people pull from the yammerheads.

What's scarier, someone that changes their position based on considered reasoning, or a zealot who refuses to reconsider any position or stance than the one they're entrenched in. It can spin both ways.

I don't care that Obama changed his vote from no to yes. He could have ALWAYS been a 'yes' and I'd still think him wrong. I wouldn't say 'oh but at least it's admirable he stood by his position', that's just retarded.

_________________

Leo, you quoted 8 things, I quoted 9 things. How do you have a much longer list?

Tell you what. I'll go through your points one by one and respond to them -- if you'll do the same for my points about Obama. Seriously.

Couple of questions.

1) Do you think campaigning on a platform of "change", and transformational politics has any weight when judging flip flops?
2) Does it matter if the candidate had one position in the thick of a nomination and then immediately, within a 2 week span, change a dozen issues that directly contradict what he stated previously?
3) Does it matter if the candidate blatantly obfuscated the justification for this change (think Obama's point that abandoning public financing is actually a better form of public financing and his statement that "we've not been listening" when he said he would unequivocally filibuster the FISA bill)?

Did you read the article I cited earlier, from Slate, that posited many of his changes were not only moving to the center, but moving to the center on constitutional law. Does it concern you more because of that? It does for me.

McCain has always - always - been strong with independents. He has also taken, and continues to take, it up the ass from conservative punditry like Limbaugh and Hannity because his positions differ significantly from theirs.

Yeah, and the last two demos to do it have lost.

I'm not sure what to make of this, since you seem to cancel out any point you may have. The vote won by a landslide, so should he show up and vote anyway? Again, you can't point this out as a virtue for Obama. I'll give him credit for not voting present. Honestly, I wonder if you even know to what I am referring.

You can believe what you want. What we know is that Clinton voted against, when she had little reason to, and Obama voted for it. Clinton has been a good camper since she lost, it's time for the conspiracy theories about her to be put to rest. Seriously, you can't blame anything on her anymore.

Read Kos point (link) about this if you like. He's just about as pro-Obama as any of you. Money quote: "If this marks the end of the triangulating version of Clinton, so much the better. That'll make her that much better a force in the Senate. (Which apparently is necessary given the new triangulating Obama now arrived on the political scene.)"

These would be good points if they weren't incredibly naive. First, the Bingaman amendment could have passed and came the closest to passing of any of them with a vote of 42-56. This amendment, of which I'm sure you have no knowledge, "one sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, merely requiring that the Senate wait until the Inspector General audits of the NSA program are complete before immunizing the telecoms."

If Obama, as the man who gets more press nationally and internationally than any other subject in the world, would have agitated for this amendment, who knows what could have happened.

It's politically expedient only if you agree with the following points:

1) That democrats must move to the center on issues related to national security (completely incorrect as exhibited by John Kerry's huge loss after trying to do so).
2) That anyone was clamoring for him to do so. No one was.
3) That his staying silent and voting Nay, without agitating for a majority Nay decision, would have had any political consequence. The netroots would have bitched, but not nearly so much, and their only complaint would be that he didn't do enough, rather than completely dodging it.
4) That democrats can do anything to change their perception as being weak on national security. Better to stick to your guns on such an important issue. The GOP will never be known as the party of diversity, even if 50% their elected reps ar
black. Perception is reality, and this FISA vote won't do anything to change the perception that demos suck here. It certainly can't be used by Obama, because as soon as he points out how great he is on national security with this vote, everyone will swoop down on him like he deserves. So, at best, you can conclude that it was a defensive maneuver. But what it might (and it doesn't) take away from the GOP on national security, it adds to their arsenal more evidence of flip flopping. It's a lose-lose.

I know this isn't your point, that it's not so bad, but if anyone really wonders, just go look up any civil libertarian or constitutional scholar. Here's a good clip from a prof at George Washington.



You realize that judicial watch group has asked the FEC to investigate Obama's sweetheart mortgage deal, don't you? Have you read the piece the Boston Globe did about his public/private housing initiatives in Chicago and how it benefitted business partners he has had relationships for years with, including REzko? BTW, yeah, some of those buildings have been completely condemned because it's been such an unmitigated disaster. Here's the link. "Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy"

Right.

Considered reasoning. That made me laugh. Give me a position he's changed and how you agree with his considered reasoning behind it.

Cute.

Not quite willing to give that one to you yet, upset about this particular topic as I may be.

_________________

heh.. couldn't resist.

ok i gotta include this just for amusement sake. too bad it's not a youtube. Jesus the headline is priceless.

Video: The Unity of Me
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/10/v ... ity-of-me/

How is he 'idealistic'? He's a power-hungry politician exactly like the rest except most of the others pay their dues & get some credentials before attempting to run for the Presidency.


Actually she has been mentioned 3 times and not a single one of those was some kind of "Hillary should have won because Obama sucks" context.


The fact that you aren't one of the fanbois should mean that you have 'considered reasoning' for your support of Obama.


What term would you prefer? Backpedalling seemed the more appropriate and less offensive one to me but whatever.


Perhaps next time he gives one of his oh so pretty speeches he will share his 'considered reasoning' with the unwashed masses. His current explanations for each of his ____ (whatever word is not offensive) seems to be that it is the best possible. I don't buy that excuse.

I think the reason (some) people hate this term so much is that:

1) It's usually bullshit. A lot of things change from bill to bill and detail to detail and often the people yelling "Flip-flopper" are ignorant to those details.

2) It's usually hypocritical. Just about every politician plays both sides and such all the time. It's never something unique to one candidate, but usually the tag catches on to only one side or the other of a campaign.

3) It seems to be one of the newest "negative labels" that you really can just throw at someone, without even having examples, and get people to dislike them. Kind of like how "liberal" was for a while there. Just say it and your opponents name in the same sentance and people are like, "OMG WAT?!?!"

Check this out.

Telco PACs Gave $8K to Dems Who Changed Their Vote on FISA Bill
http://www.maplight.org/FISA_June08

Hmm, who's number 7 on the list with a contribution of $24,500? None other than Nancy Pelosi. Nice.

Fuck Democrats, as far as I'm concerned. I'm hoping to find a similar report on senate contributions.

Wow, Joxur just discovered that big business throws money at politicians.

Well done, detective.

Yeah. It was in response to Fribur's point that the Dems haven't had time to accomplish anything.

He says that Dems need 60 votes to accomplish anything. I say that he's full of shit because they are just as corrupt as republicans.

In other words, thanks for backing up my point dumbshit. I was giving you a pass on your previous post regarding flip flops since you're just now returning to the boards and are understandably uninformed about the debate here over the past 6 fucking months, but if you like, I can eviscerate that, too. Let me know.

Feel free! I'd hate for all my typing to go to waste.

I never said they weren't just as corrupt as Republicans. Stop drinking the Fribur haterade! Your vitriol towards me today is so strong today it's nearly a visible physical force.

What I said is still true. When it was a Republican congress, with a Republican President, they needed 51 votes to get whatever they wanted. Bush never vetoed during that time, and Republicans were able to push a LOT of their agenda with only a few (or none) Democrats riding along depending on the issue. With the Democrats in control and a Republican President, it takes 60, because the President so far has vetoed every single piece of significant legislation sponsored by left. You HAVE to get a significant amount of republicans in the Senate to agree with you. You can't just ram it through. With a nearly 50-50 split, this means that shit is still at a standstill.

That said, it still pisses me off that a bill like the one we talked about today still gets through. That's not just Obama's fault; that's the Democrats as a party being pussies.

What part of this is untrue? Oh wait, you didn't say untrue-- you said bullshit. Ok, what part of my "bullshit" is false? Is my description above not what is happening in the Senate over the last few years?

Bovinity, isn't Joxur cute? He's turned hater on many of us the last few months, because his candidate lost in the Democratic primaries .

k


I'll use the FISA bill and campaign finance as two primary examples, but I can provide more if you like.

No, in most cases, he has not flipped because of "changes to bills". In the FISA case, absolutely nothing has changed from when he said he would unequivocally oppose any bill that gave telecoms immunity. The only thing that has changed is his winning of the nomination, and thus, has no need for support from the left, because he knows that people like Fribs and others will vote for him anyway. I'll call that the "dick in the ear" flip flop.

Second, in the case of campaign finance, he made a voluntary pledge with McCain to use public financing to fund his campaign, claiming that the public finance system worked just fine. After raising an absurd amount of money, he abandons the pledge. What changed? Again, absolutely nothing.


False again! As Leo so aptly demonstrated, there is plenty of flip flopping to go around.

In this case, examples have been given, and often. Read up on it - you could start in this thread if you like.

But here, let me do it for you.

-2nd Amendment: Obama said the D.C. handgun ban and the almost as restrictive Chicago ban were constitutional and supported handgun restrictions, but now he says definitively that it was unconstitutional.
-Public Financing: Obama promised he would accept public financing when he thought he'd need it, but then decided he'd rather not.
-Death Penalty: Obama opposed the death penalty on principle and supported a moratorium on capital punishment - even implying that Osama Bin Laden should not be "martyred" by it - and now he believes it is justified not just in the case of homicide and terrorism, but also of child rape and other circumstances.
-FISA: Obama opposed legal immunity for telecom companies for cooperating with government security surveillance, but now he claims to support it.
-Iraq withdrawal: Obama supported immediate day one withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but now says he'll "refine" his position and listen to the commanders on the ground if they tell him to phase out the troops slowly, while still claiming to support an impossible mark of 16 months to a total withdrawal.
-Abortion: Obama supported unlimited access to abortion, including taxpayer funding and opposing born alive infant protection, but now he says he supports states rights to restrict and even prohibit all late-term abortions, and have now requirement to have a health exception that allows for the (overwhelmingly used) basis of "mental health."
-NAFTA: Obama claimed in debates that NAFTA was incredibly broken. Yet, to my utter astonishment, claimed this about his statements during the debate: "I think that sometimes during campaign that's rhetoric gets overheated and amplified".
-Engagement with hostile countries: Obama says that he will engage in direct, unconditional talks with the leaders of countries like Iran, then says that meetings with "iranian officials" will take place at "a time of my choosing". Sounds like conditions to me.
-Gay marriage: Obama before the election: States should decide gay marriage Obama during the election: California’s attempt to decide gay marriage for itself is “divisive and discriminatory.”
-Church and State: 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

So, uhh... Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I said that you shouldn't think of Obama as the lesser of two evils because Dems have accomplished jack shit, to which you replied with a defense of democrats. And now you think Dems are pussies.

So, we're back to the Dems suck. Let me know when you change your mind again.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for a response to everything else I came back at you with. I don't expect much, though.

Yes, but none of your points in that long post, Joxur, goes to "disprove" any of my points. My entire post's point was merely to explain an opinion/feeling, not to vindicate any given candidate, especially not Obama.

So... what's your point, Joxur?

I see you post and post and post, trying to convince people that Obama is the typical pandering politician and that he's a flawed candidate. Is that pretty much it? Why not just put your "point" in your sig and be done with it instead of harping on the forums from your soapbox?

People may vote for the guy just because they like him. People may vote for the guy because they truly believe he can enact real change. People may vote for him because he's better than the alternative, a lesser of two evils. No matter what their reasoning for voting or NOT voting against him, they can't be wrong. It's their own vote, it's their own beliefs, despite how informed or uninformed you judge them to be.

Clearly you think you're right though. Clearly you think that you're the objective end-all / be-all of United States political know-how and the authoritative figure on what exactly Obama is -- or isn't -- and the defacto judge of his true character -- despite not knowing the man, and simply reading websites, blogs, and skewed political opine articles written by some no-named basement dweller or flash in the pan political commentator. Or perhaps you're posting snippets from the NYTimes, or Washington Post. In the end though, it doesn't matter.

All this strikes me as ironic, because despite having no political experience (you're far too mercurial to be in any public position of servitude, or hell even a position of authority) -- I'm curious as to what you do IRL that would make you such an authority on absolutes and political corruption within the Obama campaign, apart from being what everyone else here is ... an outside viewer and typical American who may or may not be tired of the "same ol' politics of GWB." If you're just an average Joe, then so be it. But for you to berate and bark at other people because they have differing views is insane. You rant, and you rave, incessantly.

You seem as if you're on a crusade. However, contrary to your own admittance that most Obama supporters here have "drunk DA Kool-Aid LOLOL" -- you continue to persist.

Why? Noble effort? Patriotic duty? Jaded by politics and lies and corruption? You know something the rest of America doesn't?

Nobody is going to change their minds because of what you say. You're Tyral 2.0. Bullying, loudmouthed, and ignorant -- and usually wrong. Even if you had a good message, it's obfuscated by the tirade that surrounds it and the hate and vitriol that leaks from your mouth and winds up on your fingers as you sit down to post.

My guess is that you probably get off on feeling like you've just totally pwned someone. Despite your efforts to "show people the light" -- you're simply screaming into an echo chamber.

Uhh, I'm confused.

You said:

So you're not talking about the debate right now, in politics right now. You're talking about some other time, either in the future or in the past, but not now. Because I rather effectively proved that many people, myself, Leo and others, have shown examples of flip flopping on both sides.

You also said:

Again, are you referring to that special time, in the past or future, but not now? Because a few people here are using specific details and examples as I just did.

How you say that I didn't disprove your points is confusing. Explain it to me as if I were a small child, please. Maybe I'll get it.

I'm sure you feel bullied in particular on this thread. Want me to go back and quote all the vicious shit posted about me in the past 4 months?

As far as being wrong, you've done nothing here to show me I'm wrong. If you spent half as much time paying attention to what's going on as you did telling me how awful a person I am, you might do better.

Besides, clearly all of this is having some effect. I give you:

I find it pretty damned ironic that the same person who posted this:

is now berating anyone for the tone of their posts.

I told you (and I wasn't kidding) that I was done with that argument. You can claim I am doing so because I can't stand in the face of your overwhelming logic if you wish. The truth is, about half of your last several posts didn't address people's points entirely (you seemed to have missed the main thrust of Bovinity's previous post, for example), and about 90% of your post in question challenging me has already been addressed, mostly by others, in this and other threads over the last 6 months or so. It's unbelieveably tiring to go back and rewrite what has already been said over and over and over again, and it's clear that it will not change your opinion, so why bother?

Let us know how you vote in November. I'll be curious. You've said a few times that you would hold your nose and vote for Obama, and lately your hatred seems so strong that it's hard for me to believe that you would actually do that.

I know for certain I've been way less than cordial and completely out of line with a lot of my posts. And yeah, that is pretty ironic huh, Kula?

I realized that it's not worth posting if I can't articulate my thoughts clearly and in a way that promotes discussion, not shit-slinging and name calling. Knowing that, posting on the internet about something like that isn't really something I care to spend a lot of time doing. Considering the audience, nobody is likely to change their opinions or sway their views. It's a futile effort. That's not saying we're all ignorant or stupid, just that we're all ingrained, it's likely that we're already stickin' to our guns and have our minds made up. It's extremely doubtful that a single post on an internet forum will pierce whatever notion someone has about something and reverse their opinion.

Yet you keep on, keepin' on...

Having said that, posting here is pretty much out of the question when there's A) no resolution to be had and B) importance on the scale of things I care about daily is extremely low. That's not to say I won't post, or I won't stick my head in when I have an opinion, however, the frequency of me posting versus the valuable material that was to be had was extremely low. So, why bother posting in such a manner, if there's little to gain?

I don't know what card I'm playing here. I'm not necessarily backing off my opinions, I just think the return on investment of trying to explain myself is pretty low. I'm not playing the "omg message boards" aren't important card either. Call it what you will, because if there were ever anything I were certain about on the Lanys forums... Someone will call it out no matter what.

Tarot commented on hating terms like "flip-flopper".

You asked "what term would you prefer?"

I merely offered my opinions on why many people dislike popular labels like flip-flopper.

I didn't think I'd have to spell this out, but I will. I'm as pissed off at this immunity passing as anyone else.

And the money floating around the vote just makes it worse. That's exactly what I'm fighting against in my race. There's a systemic problem with corruptness (or for any staunch supporters out there, the appearance of corruptness) in our government. There are good people and bad people on both sides, and we can replace bad people until the cows come home (Hi, Bovinity!), but until we change the way system lets money influence electeds, we won't solve the problem.

I don't like what appear reversals in some of his policies either (though if inclined, I'd argue that some of the items in your list don't belong). And yes, if you followed the link in my post, you'd see that I posted excerpts from a list of 61 such reversals made by McCain.

Let's not get confused though. There are three different things that have been lumped into the category of flip-flopping and that's deceitful. Let me rank them for you, from least to most scary.

1) Position refinement. This is when a candidate's position shifts to an at least partially similar stance, e.g. Obama and troops in Iraq. There was always either an explicit or implicit qualifier that troop safety was the #1 concern and thus his plans would be based on how quickly we could safely withdraw.

2) Position reversal. This is a complete 180-degree turn from a candidate's previous position, like when all of a sudden, waterboarding was cool with McCain, after having been an outspoken (and respected) voice against it.

3) Blowing in the wind. This is when a candidate will say whatever has the most immediate political expediency, regardless of any stance taken prior. This is the act of greatest concern. At best, it means the candidate's not sure what he believe in (meaning he's more susceptible to lobbyists). It shows contempt for the intelligence of the electorate. And at worst, it's a sign that a candidate lacks good decision-making skills. That's why I emphasized these when pointing them out. That's how I'd define flip-flopping (though, like Tarot, I detest the term).

You'll often see politicians realize they just put their foot in their mouth and lower their level of change. That's what FL Gov. Charlie Crist wanted to do when he got blasted after he reversed his position on offshore drilling. He tried to shift that into a refinement stance by saying he'd limit on how and where it's done. That's what backpedaling is.

Refinement can be a change in position, but it's typically a natural evolution (let's not start that debate, eh?) or at least a gap purposely left empty at one point that's now being filled in. It's usually not something to be alarmed about and not something that's ever likely to change so long as people engage in politics.

Reversal can sometimes be a change in position, though most politicians abhor admitting they were wrong. More often than not it's a strategic change in position to attract a wanted subset of the electorate.

But the last one... that's flipping the bird at the people and saying whatever it takes to win. It was a lot easier to do this before modern communications made so simple to record and compare a candidate's statements. John McCain (who by the way, knows the Internet exists) is walking the same path his younger mentor taught him. In 2000, McCain was a fairly independent Republican, but since losing that race to Bush, he adopted Bush's positions and tactics. Now, not only is he campaigning largely on the Bush platform, but his campaign style is just like Bush's.

Omg! you're growing up?


Joxur, I don't 'think' Bovinity was actually joining the discussion, simply trying to turn it into yet another discussion on semantics. Tiresome? yup. Especially as Bovinity didn't give any options as to what is an ACCEPTABLE word choice to the words 'flip-flop' or 'backpedal'.

Semantics?

Acceptable word choice?

I fail to see how my offering reasons why people have come to dislike the term "flip-flopper" has anything to do with semantics.

Leo just gave you your terms, Kula.

And I'm sorry, but Bovinity's longer post wast thoughtful and respectful and gave good reasons why I also avoid terms like "flipfloppers." Kerry got completely maligned by that bullshit in 2004, and I'm simply not willing to go that route unless it is thrown at candidates I support in a similiarly silly fashion.

Except, see, I didn't use the term 'flip-flopper'. Nope.

I'm trying to remember when I said you did. Oh wait, I didn't.

It's almost like they're taking our dislike of the term "Flip-flopper" personally or something, Fribur.

Believe it or not, Jox/Kul, there's no underlying suggestion or hint or subtle jab floating around there. I just don't like the term and tried to explain why. I apologize if it went off on a bit of a tangent, but I just can't stand phrases like that. They catch on and get enormous stigma attached to them and become phrases that are just tossed around at candidates for no other reason than to try to get the stigma to stick to them.

I just can't help but think of McCarthy-era "Communist!" accusations when I hear these phrases crop up.

So, what is the PC alternative?

It's really boring to have these semantics debates. Maybe we need a sticky of the TERMS_NOT_TO_BE_USED. Especially as discussions that devolve into semantics arguments are generally led in that direction when people have nothing real to say.

Again, you're using the word semantics here when it doesn't apply. In fact, it seems as though you're just intentionally attempting to make the discussion more difficult than it ever needs to be.

I'm not asking anyone to use a different word or to split hairs when approaching the topic. I simply don't like the way that phrases catch on, get a big stigma attached, and then just get thrown around willy-nilly for the sole purpose of dragging a candidate down. It's not phrase-specific, and nowhere have I demanded that people replace any phrase with a PC alternative. In fact, it has more to do with the principle of the matter than with any single phrase.

Yet the reversal is due more to the success of the surge than anything else. You could argue, effectively, that it is safer to withdraw now than it was before. I'll buy that troop safety was listed, but I'll dispute you that it's an issue at all right now. If there's less violence, isn't it easier to withdraw?

I'd argue that changing a position to attract more votes is pandering. And yes, it's on both sides.

Yet we have Obama who had one of the most liberal voting records during his career in the senate moving rapidly to the center after the nomination. Given those two facts (and they are facts), how do I know who Obama is?

How do you reconcile this statement with your own past statements here on the boards and McCain's history? Sure, McCain is not quite the maveric he used to be, but he doesn't toe the party line any more than Obama does with his totally partisan record. Furthermore, you keep talking about how you won't dignify posts with answers (quite often) and yet you say that Bush is McCain's mentor. Be real, Leo.

How is McCain's campaign style different than Obama's? Campaign style is a pretty broad term and I don't want to jump to any conclusions on what you mean.

It seems like everyone we nominate to run for president these days is not a moderate, but has to act like a moderate in order to actually win an election. That goes for people on the right and on the left..they all gravitate to the middle at election time.

My question is, If the middle is what the majority of America wants to pick, why don't we just nominate someone who is actually a moderate in the first place? There must be qualified canidates that have been in the middle their entire careers.

I couldn't agree more. In Bush' case, he went to the middle during the general election (compassionate conservatism, anyone?) and then quickly became a vicious partisan.

Because the primaries are controled by the hard-core party people. They tend to be further away from the center than the mass. In the Democrat primaries you will hear the candidates preach "Environmental Solutions, Tax The Rich, Bush is the Devil, Republicans are hatemongerors, Increase Government Programs, End the War Now..." to please the most people that participate in the Democrat primary. On the Republican side they will say "Cut taxes, Democrats are Liberals and the Devil, National Security, 911, Osama Bin Laden" to please their core. Once the general comes around each candidate must take positions on issues that the other candidate ran their primary on, thus the run to the middle.

Obama was considered one of the most liberal senators and he has to move to the center. McCain was considered a moderate. During the primary he had to make an abrupt shift to the right to get the nomination and he is trying to stay in the right of center area.

As long as there are just two main parties viable for the White House, there will be this constant shift.

Have a great weekend!

It's so funny you want to make this into a PC ARGUMENT OMG IT IS PC OR NOT PC?!!?!

You. Never. Used. Flipflop. Prior. To. The. Media.

Now if I had lots of time and was getting paid, I could put up a daily show montage which shows 800 people saying 'flipflop', half of whom would probably be on Fox. :p

That's why it's annoying. Because people are blindly parroting the latest buzzwords from the media, and then using them as implied insults.

And anything can be spun any way. Someone doesn't change their vote, then paint them an entrenched zealot. Or you could go with explaining what the politically smart thing to do would be, then paint them as inexperienced. Or you could go with the fact that they accomplished nothing with their vote, and then paint them as completely ineffective.

Facts? Who needs facts, we've got spin man. It's not about what you say, it's about how you say it....right?

:p

L2think plz. And I do think that you think, but when we (and yes, I guarentee I do it at times too) start using media buzzterms, we're buying into their bullshit.

It's not about new terms which are appropriately descriptive (like truthiness) that we overuse because it's a good word which describes something we all see, but really haven't had a good word for.

It's about smear words used to take a situation which occurs for everyone (all politicians have a record of switching positions and if they don't they're corrupt or a moron) and putting a word to it that is becomes a buzz term.

Sort of like when 'liberal' became a nasty name. Something which still cracks me up.

_________________

Two points:

1) You mean the Brass on the ground agree with existing policy? Shocking. Truly.

2) There are alternative methods to equipment re-deployment than the one mentioned to Kuwait. That said, Barack's plan is a bit aggressive, but not exactly 10 more years. "Conditions-based" withdrawal is a bit silly. What's the consequence for not meeting conditions on the Iraqi side? "Umm...then we won't go anywhere, HA! That'll show ya!". "Time-based withdrawal is the ONLY thing that will keep the Iraqis moving forward. I feel bad for them (the people, not the useless government), as we created this situation, but at the end of the day, it's not worth American lives or a permanent post. Turkey and Italy worked fine until we went and fucked that up with this war.

Says someone who uses canned gaming terminology invented by 12 year olds.

Regardless, what is the point of your rant? Perception is reality. Regardless of whether you think flip flop, reversal, pivot or whatever other motherfucking word you can dig out of your ass, flip flop is what is being used and what will be used.

That's fine. Call it whatever you will, but don't deny the reason why it's done.Despite whatever score you're looking at about Obama's voter record, he's never been a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. Liberal groups and voters are going to flock behind him, of course, because he's opened his campaign like none before and because he's the best hope for a Democratic president (certainly now, regardless of whatever you or I thought before the primary was over).I am being real. McCain learned a lot from Bush about campaign tactics and partisanship. He's moved to the right to attract his base, which he didn't do in 2000. He pulled for Republican unity behind Bush when many were scattering during the 2004 and 2006 elections. Among Republicans, he has been one of Bush's biggest cheerleaders, if for no other reason than he wanted their support this time around. If you want to say McCain's spent eight years pandering to the right, fine.

How is McCain's campaign style different than Obama's? You can't seriously have to ask that. Obama's attracted something like 1.5 million donors to his campaign. His website has opened up debate and participation like no other. They've provided leadership training for people all over the country who are now bringing communities together behind the bread and butter issues they deal with every day.

Huh? How is this?

I'm sorry? My position is that his pandering was done to win the nomination only, not because of any higher principles. Do you dispute that?

Well gee, Leo, all I have to go on is his extremely limited voting record. And his voting record is overwhelmingly liberal. A take no chances record, honestly. So in what way can you say that he is not a dyed-in-the-wool liberal? He's certainly not anymore, I'll give you that! Who knows what he is these days.

Both campaigns utilize 527s (more from left leaning 527s than GOP, so far). Both campaigns have gone negative. Both campaigns are pandering and flip flopping.

So, even if I buy your charge that McCain is utilizing "Bush tactics", how is the Obama campaign different in that regard?

I loved that last sentence. Have you ever considered doing PR work for the campaign?

Howard Dean did all of this when it was hard. There's no doubt Obama has had a well-run campaign. Strangely, it seems that the criticisms of the campaign are strongest when he stops reading the teleprompter and promptly inserts his foot in his mouth. Maybe his campaign chair should run for president.

Wrong. The Obama campaign is not working with 527s. And while any campaign can (and has to) say that, Obama is actively changing the rules by which the organizations allying themselves with his campaign raise and spend money. Both the Democratic National Committee and MoveOn.org, for example, are no longer raising money like 527s. There are now strict limits and reporting requirements in place.

The RNC, on the other hand, does everything they can to cozy up to money interests. While McCain bashes Obama about turning down public financing, look at the soft money the RNC is raising.



The concept that Obama is somehow at an unfair monetary advantage is false. So accuse whoever you want to of pandering. Going back to the degrees of political deceit I outlined earlier, the biggest problem is the more blatant violation of public trust being committed by McCain. At least Obama isn't talking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to who's paying for his campaign.

No one is interested in your facts Leo, they have no place here!

_________________

My mistake then. I'll just take my facts and go home.

Yeah, great facts.



Kind of like this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/us/po ... ref=slogin
Democrats Look to Lobbyist to Finance Convention



Or this.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? ... 481F25202A
GOP third-party effort nonexistent

To put this in perspective, let's look at what Mr. Obama himself has said of special interest money.

http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/ ... 24935.html


In other Joxur-as-Oracle news... Remember when I said that he was arrogant and insular (don't make me find the thread, thanks)?

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? ... 7CB9DB8434
Hill Democrats miffed at Obama

With Congress doing as poorly as it is, I'm supposed to be upset that Obama doesn't have stronger ties to House & Senate leadership?

You're really reaching for straws, Jox.

He'll only work with people who are "popular"? He has to work with these people after elected. Nice rebuttal, Leo.

Time to let this thread die, I think you and I are the only ones interested anymore, heh.

Lots of people are interested Joxur, they're just not interested in a discussion with you...and you've been told why numerous times.

I think Leo is the only one left who hasn't completely given up on you. Though I could be wrong maybe there are a few others.

_________________

I don't mind discussions with Jox, and this thread is interesting. I just don't have an informed enough opinion to really debate anything in this thread, so I read it with interest and let it be.

None of it has really swayed me one way or the other beyond my initial reaction to the bill, though.

I couldn't disagree with this more.

I would agree the only comments in the last 2 pages other than those two have been pretty simplistic and fanboyish. I'd say this, Joxur has done an extremely good job at pointing out how little we really know about Obama. Even with the little we do know he is (very slowly and in small increments) changed his position, making the little we know based on actual events (votes, actions) moot since he now says he would favor a different path. I don't get, from reading the thread, that Joxur is saying Obama is the devil or that he wouldn't vote for him.

Yes, most of the people on the Lanys boards are big Obama backers and are unabashed about it, making the chance for him to talk them into voting for McCain slim to none (not that that is his actual agenda) and I don't think Leo is posting just out of boredom or frustration. This isn't a discussion that can be resolved because all the cards that make up what is actually correct won't be known for 5 years. Jox seems to be simply pointing out things that support his original point as they come up. Seeing how upset people get at each little percieved backslide by Obama just adds to the humor.

Keep it up Jox.


"The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right."

Thanks for the support. I'm not overly concerned about Tarot and the rest of the bandwagoners, though.

There is a Washington Post editorial about Obama and McCain's reporting of bundler fundraising. Worth a read per the early parts of this thread.

How Big Are Those Bundles?
Barack Obama's failure to practice what he legislates
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... v=hcmodule

So Leo, all is not as clear as you portray. And even though you can say that, at best, they are the same, that hurts Obama a lot more than it hurts McCain.

I'd like that already compiled, sure. But I don't think it's a big deal that it's not. Want to change that? Look at his finance reports, compile the data, then post it online.

Hell, you could write a script to automatically do it after each campaign finance report is filed. The information is already out there for anyone who wants to look at it.

Considering OpenSecrets.org, one of the best sites for donor research, hasn't done this yet, I have to wonder how many people a) care or b) know about bundling.

Does politics as usual hurt Obama more than McCain? Of course. People already expect that from McCain.

Why should I do the work? It wasn't me, after all, who sponsored a measure requiring presidential candidates to disclose the names, contributions and employers of bundlers.

I can find names, but not employers or contribution amounts. I think I've got some pretty phat research skillz, and if I can't find it, I doubt the average American could.

I'll get to why you're wrongheaded here in a sec. First:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07 ... es-to.html
Open Secrets is in fact talking about this. Money quote.



You're saying that since it's not top of mind that we should not dig? You're sounding like a Bushie more and more every day.

What we don't know doesn't hurt us, huh?

Do you disagree then, that knowing who is funneling these mega contributions into the Obama and McCain campaigns is important? Keep in mind that the amount of bundlers that Obama has almost doubled recently. Don't you want to know who has their hands in the cookie jar? For a guy supporting a candidate that is all about change and, to your own point recently, "The RNC, on the other hand, does everything they can to cozy up to money interests. ".

Is this only important to you when you can score a political point against McCain?

But there's more here. Obama isn't exactly the shining star of public disclosure.

- He released one page letter from his doctor of his medical records - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar ... ts-sm.html

- He says he could have "thrown out" records of his years as a state legislator in Illinois - http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007 ... 715711.txt

- He and his former law firm say Obama only did a few hours of work for nonprofit firms connected to convicted donor Tony Rezko, but no records have been released to confirm that.

There's more than that, but I'll spare you the details. What about his app to the lllinois Bar and/or his app for security clearance to the US State department?

Not good from a candidate that no one really knows a lot about, certainly can't look at any length as a legislator in the US senate.

Whoa, back the bus up. I'm not saying we shouldn't care or that it doesn't matter because nobody cares. That's rhetorical BS and while I'm no longer expecting to reach consensus, that does nothing to further the discussion.

What I'm saying is, the information is there and nobody's cared to compile the report. You can send all the letters you want, but when the vast majority (I'll assume it's possible, however unlikely, some of the bundlers haven't themselves given $200 or more) is already available, you may as well do the work yourself.

Here's a link to the latest report from the Obama campaign detailing 211,698 donations given last month. When that information was given (and a campaign must make a good faith attempt to collect this data), you'll find employers and occupations.

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/ ... 680/sa/ALL

OpenSecrets already parses this information. They just don't take the same step you're asking the campaign to take, listing on one page the bundlers, their employers, and occupations.

For future reference, federal campaign finance info is (usually) easy to find at http://www.fec.gov (note: site doesn't work w/o www). Just just "View/Download Electronic Filings" from the "Campaign Finance Reports and Data" menu. Then type in the name of the candidate/committee you're looking for, "Obama for America" in this case. You'll find committee names (typically) at the bottom of their websites, in a little box that says Paid for by...