So what happened to McCain?

[Jason Rees]

I'm shocked Bill... Just... shocked.

[mhosea]

The thing is, I think Mitt was less like "the real Romney" when articulating views for the Massachusetts electorate than when doing so for the national electorate. A great example is his position on abortion. He was the pro choice governor of Massachusetts, and the pro life candidate for president. Now you tell me, which view is more consistent with his Mormon religion? (And just HOW MANY kids does he have??? )
[snip]
Problem is, I don't think that was the real Mitt Romney.

These thoughts had occurred to me. Unfortunately, the next thought was whether lying was consistent with his religion. It seems to me that the honorable thing would have been to admit his personal position but argue that as a practical matter the issue is not relevant to Massachusetts politics and that he would not use the office to try to make it relevant.

[Jason Rees]

It seems to me that the honorable thing would have been to admit his personal position but argue that as a practical matter the issue is not relevant to Massachusetts politics and that he would not use the office to try to make it relevant.

Here we come to the perennial question of politics. Is it possible to win while doing the 'honorable thing?'

[Gene DeMambro]

I honestly believe that Obama didn't need to pander to win the primary or the general election - his positions and his candidacy spoke for itself. I don't remember him ever needing to change his positions to win votes or any accusations of being a flip-flopper.

As to Jason's other question, I'd like to think that American voter is intelligent enough to evaluate what the candidates say and what the do and what they think in order to decide whom to vote for. All the candidates need to do is say what they think, act iin the way they usually act, show us how worthy they are of the office they are seeking and let us decide.

But, in the question for powerful office, I am reminded from that line from The Matrix Reloaded:

The Oracle: What do all men with power want? More power

and also Lord Acton

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

I take issue with the last sentence, but the first one fits perfectly.

Cheers,
Gene

[Bill Glasheen]

I honestly believe that Obama didn't need to pander to win the primary or the general election - his positions and his candidacy spoke for itself. I don't remember him ever needing to change his positions to win votes or any accusations of being a flip-flopper.

This was so easy... Do I feel guilty for this slam dunk? Naaahhh!!!

You are welcome, Jason.

- Bill

Obama's flip-flops

By: The Associated Press
July 5, 2008 10:03 AM EST

BUTTE, Mont. — Is Barack Obama close to being shadowed by giant flip-flops and, worse, having the image stick with people all the way to the voting booth?

Four years ago, Republicans branded as a "flip-flop" even the slightest rhetorical or policy change by Sen. John F. Kerry and sent huge replicas of the casual sandals to bob around the Massachusetts Democrat's events, feeding an image of him as a wishy-washy panderer.

Fair or not, Kerry never recovered and lost to President Bush.

It's now the Republican weapon of choice against Obama.

The Illinois senator has excited many with the notion that he is a new, transcendent type of politician. But he is giving the GOP effort ammunition and endangering his "Change We Can Believe In" motto with several shifts to the center, most recently on the Iraq war, his campaign's defining issue.

General election campaigns invariably find candidates fine-tuning what they said during primaries.

When politicians compete against others in their party, they must appeal to the most partisan, who tend to make up the majority of enthusiastic voters at that stage. But general elections require a broader appeal, particularly to the vast center of the nation's electorate.

So it's not uncommon as spring fades and November approaches to see candidates de-emphasize or even cast off some of their most extreme positions in favor of policy more palatable to the middle. They mostly do it quietly, or try to anyway.

And though there can sometimes be criticism about shifting positions, voters usually forgive and forget.

For one thing, a willingness to hone policy, add nuance or even change one's mind — especially when new information comes to light — is not in itself a bad quality in a leader. For another, those partisans who supported a candidate in the primaries are not likely to switch parties and back the other candidate. Often the worst that can happen is they stay home on Election Day. Politicians are usually willing to risk that for the chance to court the center.

Hence Obama has been espousing positions anathema to the left on several issues.

On Iraq, Obama said Thursday that his upcoming trip there might lead him to refine his promise to quickly remove U.S. troops from the war.

He now supports broader authority for the government's eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in it, after opposing a similar bill last year.

After the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's gun ban, the handgun-control proponent said he favors both an individual's right to own a gun as well as government's right to regulate ownership.

Obama became the first major-party candidate to reject public financing for the general election after earlier promises to accept it.

He not only embraced but promised to expand Bush's program to give more anti-poverty grants to religious groups, a split with Democratic orthodoxy.

He objected to the Supreme Court's decision outlawing the death penalty for child rapists, even though he has been anti-capital punishment.

Obama also said "mental distress" should not count as a health exception that would permit a late-term abortion, saying "it has to be a serious physical issue," addressing a matter considered crucial to abortion rights activists.


The GOP increasingly has sought to take advantage of any opportunity to permanently pin the flip-flopper label on Obama, with all its unappealing associations, and strip him of the shiny-new-penny one he has cultivated.

"There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the national Republican Party.

It might be working. Despite disarray in Republican John McCain's camp, Bush's dismal approval ratings and just 17 percent of the public saying the nation is moving in the right direction, recent polls show Obama unable to build a solid lead over his GOP rival.

For Obama, there is no more important issue than Iraq.

Unequivocal opposition to the war drove his entrance into the race. It helped him defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton for the nomination. It made him a darling of the anti-war activists who are now prominent and influential in the Democratic Party.

Those forces won't like Thursday's statement-bordering-on-a-promise that "I'll ... continue to refine my policy" on Iraq, particularly after he visits and makes what he said would be a "thorough assessment."

Obama's problem on Iraq isn't that he is changing his position drastically, because he isn't.

Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require consultations with military commanders and, possibly, flexibility. This, in fact, is the only reasonable stance for a U.S. commander in chief to take.

His problem is that his change in emphasis to flexibility from a hard-nosed end-the-war stance — including his recent position that withdrawing combat troops could take as long as 16 months — will now be heard loud and clear by an anti-war camp that may have ignored it before. So he could face a double-whammy in their feelings of betrayal and other voters' belief in the Republican charge that he is craven.

It was Obama's messy series of comments Thursday, coming after weeks in which Republicans had been goading him to change his withdrawal policy in light of reduced violence, that put an unfortunate spotlight on his quandary.

After his remark at a news conference about refining policy exploded onto the political scene, he called a do-over four hours later to "try this again." He said the refining wouldn't be related to his promise to remove combat forces within 16 months of taking office, but to the number of troops needed to train Iraqis and fight Al Qaeda. But then he acknowledged that the 16-month time line could indeed slip if removing troops risked their safety or Iraqi stability.

Still, he said, "I will bring this war to a close. ... I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position."

Obama said his overall problem is that he was incorrectly tagged to begin with as being a product solely of his party's left wing, so that statements displaying a broad ideological range are portrayed as shifts when they are not. "When I simply describe what has been my position consistently, then suddenly people act surprised," he lamented earlier this week.

But his problem may in fact be that he's not handling the shifts quietly enough — and maybe not forgivably either.

[Gene DeMambro]

For one thing, a willingness to hone policy, add nuance or even change one's mind — especially when new information comes to light — is not in itself a bad quality in a leader. For another, those partisans who supported a candidate in the primaries are not likely to switch parties and back the other candidate. Often the worst that can happen is they stay home on Election Day.

You argue best when you argue my point, Bill. Further, Obama voters didn't stay home on election day - McCain voters did.

Back to my lazy Sunday afternoon,
Gene

[Jason Rees]

You argue best when you argue my point, Bill. Further, Obama voters didn't stay home on election day - McCain voters did.

Back to my lazy Sunday afternoon,
Gene

And so Gene proves my point. It's not possible to win while doing the 'honorable thing.' McCain took several stands recently in his career that hurt his campaign, but were the right thing to do.

[Bill Glasheen]

You argue best when you argue my point, Bill. Further, Obama voters didn't stay home on election day - McCain voters did.


Back to my lazy Sunday afternoon

The only thing supporting any point, Gene, is the "lazy Sunday afternoon." Between that and your delusional statement, it appears that you are high.

Last I checked, McCain voters voted for McCain and Obama voters voted for Obama. Just thought you needed that clarification. Should I type slower for you?

As for Obama winning, check with James Carville and Bill Clinton. In their own words, "It's the economy, stupid!"

- Bill

[mhosea]

It's not possible to win while doing the 'honorable thing.

I don't buy it. If anything "it's the economy, stupid" suggests that, while people may have their pet ideological concerns, the election is probably still determined by the subset of voters who are willing to vote purely on practical matters of governance. Convince them that your policies will make their lives better, hold on to to the votes of the ideologues on your side, and you have a shot.

[Jason Rees]

It's not possible to win while doing the 'honorable thing.

I don't buy it. If anything "it's the economy, stupid" suggests that, while people may have their pet ideological concerns, the election is probably still determined by the subset of voters who are willing to vote purely on practical matters of governance. Convince them that your policies will make their lives better, hold on to to the votes of the ideologues on your side, and you have a shot.

Please show me how voting for Obama is a vote purely on practical matters of governance. That usually implies qualifications. Yeah, that didn't matter an iota, this election.

But again, It's not possible to win while doing the 'honorable thing. Economy or no economy.

Don't even get me started on the myth that Dems, by some supernaturally shared power, handle the economy better...

[Bill Glasheen]

Don't even get me started on the myth that Dems, by some supernaturally shared power, handle the economy better...

Actually JFK handled the economy quite nicely - by LOWERING the capital gains tax rate. That spurred investment, which stimulated economic growth, which brought jobs, which helped the little guy. Go figure.

Obama made fun of Nancy Reagan and her seances. Maybe someone should set one up for him with JFK so that this Blue Dog Democrat can teach the "community activist" a little something about the evils of wealth redistribution.

- Bill

[mhosea]

Please show me how voting for Obama is a vote purely on practical matters of governance. That usually implies qualifications. Yeah, that didn't matter an iota, this election.

No, it doesn't imply qualifications, not at all. It implies a belief, rational or irrational, that one candidate will do more than another to positively impact ones practical interests than the other.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111130/Obama ... orism.aspx

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=96599102

[Gene DeMambro]

You know me well enough, Bill, to know that I don't touch the stuff. So, no, definitely not high. To say that cutting taxes left and right increases government revenue, well, talk about delusional. Just because you say it, Bill, doesn't make it so.

They were the right thing for McCain to do, Jason - to you. Apparently, the voters had a different idea of what's right and just for the country. Deal with it. And John McCain's experience showed itself as lacking when he said, as the house was falling down around him, that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong", not to mention that irrational move to "suspend" his campaign and potentially skip the debate to deal with the economy. Those actions spoke for themselves.

Look at Bill Clinton's handling of the economy to see exhibit A on how Democrats hande to economy - paid down the deficit and left with a surplus when it was all over. Those were the days.... But, don't let the facts get in the way of a good hate.

Cheers,
Gene

[mhosea]

Look at Bill Clinton's handling of the economy to see exhibit A on how Democrats hande to economy - paid down the deficit and left with a surplus when it was all over.

Oh, can we make Carter an exhibit B, or do we only get to pick democrats who preside over economic bubbles and manage to leave office just before they burst? Nice work if you can get it.

[Bill Glasheen]

Look at Bill Clinton's handling of the economy to see exhibit A on how Democrats hande to economy - paid down the deficit and left with a surplus when it was all over.

Nope... We've discussed this many times before.

It was having a Republican Congress (see Contract with America) in conjunction with a Democratic president that resulted in this rare feat. Plus... there were some book keeping shenanigans that made the budget look different than what it was, such as changing short-term debt to long-term. That was a one-time non savings.

And let's not forget that Willie's "peace dividend" and distractions in the Oral Office led to problems festering in the Middle East. We're still paying for the oversights and inaction that led to 9/11, Afghanistan, TSA, etc., etc. Oh and let's not forget his expansion of the "junk loan" market - the source of our present economic meltdown. An ounce of prevention may very well have led to some significant economic savings farther down the road. So if our accountant was intellectually honest, it makes sense to look at Bill's balance sheet in a broader perspective.

I'm willing to acknowledge that Clinton had a part in this short-term gain. But that's viewing his record with a favorable bias. That's like talking about the gains in my Polaroid stock in the 1970s.

- Bill