1
   

more bullshit

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 08:52 am
DrewDad wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Late to this... has anyone questioned whether there actually WAS any "repositioning"?

News Flash: Obama states that he has a brain and can actually think and possibly change his mind! Millions of Internet posters immediately protest the impossibility of changing anyone's mind.


News Flash: Teleprompter changes Obama's mind.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 09:16 am
McCain's use of a teleprompter doesn't help his pronunciation much; he mangles words like Bush.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 09:20 am
McCain works quite competently without a teleprompter, however. Obama doesn't seem to be able to do that nearly so well.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 09:20 am
H2O_MAN wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Late to this... has anyone questioned whether there actually WAS any "repositioning"?

News Flash: Obama states that he has a brain and can actually think and possibly change his mind! Millions of Internet posters immediately protest the impossibility of changing anyone's mind.


News Flash: Teleprompter changes Obama's mind.

Followup: Quick response supports Internet posters' position.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 09:48 am
The overseas media seems to be following the stated policy changes sometimes better than our local press:

US candidates practise their U-turns
By Max Deveson
BBC News, Washington

In order to pass their political driving test, successful politicians need to be masters of one tricky manoeuvre in particular - the U-turn.

The candidates have shifted their positions on a number of policies

The contenders in this year's US presidential election are no exceptions - both John McCain and Barack Obama have engaged in some nifty repositioning.

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

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.

Flip-flopping politicians will always attract charges of hypocrisy and opportunism: it may be worth it if it helps them win over undecided voters in the middle, but when the goal is to shore up their political base, the benefits are much less clear.

Here are some examples.


JOHN MCCAIN
Having long been a member of his party's more moderate wing on a number of issues, Mr McCain began adopting more right-wing positions during the primary campaign.

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.



BARACK OBAMA

Since clinching the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama has also been making headlines for his policy shifts.

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."

BBC re U-TURNS
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 11:31 am
so according to a bi-partisan non biased source Obama and McCain are about even up in the flip flop department.

Which is all I've been saying. Obama is a politician who wants to win, period. That doesn't make him worse than anyone else, but it doesn't make him better either. He's just another lying sack of **** willing to do what it takes. McCain too. Hillary too. All of them.

Just lay off all the mighty instrument of change bullshit please. It's you zealots that make him annoying on top of everything else, JUST LIKE THE BUSHITES!!!!, not he himself.

Having said that, of course Obama or even McCain will be an improvement over bush. So would Jim Brady or anyone's grandfather with senile dementia.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 11:48 am
In defense of McCain on most of those illustrations, however, there is no clear indication that he flipflopped. A commitment to combating global warming does not necessarily require a ban on offshore drilling for instance; and personally I think any competent leader would be able to weigh a preference for not drilling against the greater needs of the economy and energy demands. So I'm not sure that is a true flip flop.

Opposing the SCOTUS ruling re rights of prisoners is not the same thing as closing Guatanamo so I don't know that this is a flipflop either.

He admitted that he changed his mind on immigration and was bending to the will of the people and he understood that they disapproved of his original stance. So is this a flipflop? Or an admitted accommodation to what the American people ask for?

The deal with Falwell was clearly a political maneuver and clearly qualifies as a flipflop. I'm not familiar enough with the CIA deal to comment.

Some of the same phenomenon is of course true of Obama, too, but it is harder to characterize most of the examples used with him as anything other than flipflops.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 11:53 am
Foxfyre wrote:
In defense of McCain on most of those illustrations, however, there is no clear indication that he flipflopped. A commitment to combating global warming does not necessarily require a ban on offshore drilling for instance; and personally I think any competent leader would be able to weigh a preference for not drilling against the greater needs of the economy and energy demands. So I'm not sure that is a true flip flop.

Opposing the SCOTUS ruling re rights of prisoners is not the same thing as closing Guatanamo so I don't know that this is a flipflop either.

He admitted that he changed his mind on immigration and was bending to the will of the people and he understood that they disapproved of his original stance. So is this a flipflop? Or an admitted accommodation to what the American people ask for?

The deal with Falwell was clearly a political maneuver and clearly qualifies as a flipflop. I'm not familiar enough with the CIA deal to comment.

Some of the same phenomenon is of course true of Obama, too, but it is harder to characterize most of the examples used with him as anything other than flipflops.


'cept he didn't flip-flop on the Iraq issue at all, and the piece doesn't even claim that he did; they merely say:

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

That's a flip-flop? That some of his critics say that he MIGHT change his position?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 12:49 pm
TPM, again:

Greg Sargent wrote:
McCain Campaign Falsely Asserts That Obama "Changed His Mind" On Iraq
By Greg Sargent - July 7, 2008, 11:50AM

The McCain campaign continues to push an outright falsehood: That Obama flip-flopped on Iraq.

On a conference call with reporters a few moments ago, a senior McCain surrogate, Steve Forbes, recited a litany of things that Obama has supposedly flip-flopped on, and said that Obama had "changed his mind" on troop withdrawals from Iraq.

This, of course, is false. All Obama said on Friday was that he would "continue to refine" his Iraq policies -- and what's more, he reiterated at a second presser that day that his 16-month withdrawal timetable was not subject to refinement.

The McCain campaign's efforts to work the flip-flop narrative into the dialog got a big assist from the truly awful reporting we already saw on Obama's comments. Nor are there any signs that the press will challenge the McCain camp's latest misrepresentation of what he said.

Will Obama ultimately shift his position on the timing of withdrawal? Anything is possible. But it just isn't true to say that Obama has "changed his mind" on Iraq.

Not that facts matter, of course.


http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/mccain_campaign_falsely_assert.php

To be clear -- Obama has changed his mind and probably will again. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that -- depends on why he changes his mind and what he changes his mind to.

But this particular story seems to be driven more by the McCain campaign and questionable reporting than anything really substantial.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 12:57 pm
Obama has the nomination based on large part because he stated he would start removing troops from Iraq immediately. I am sure the quote is here somewhere.

If for no other reason, that alone has gotten him to the position he is in today. Now, should he change his mind on that, do you feel that he is the candidate you guys wanted to win? Should Obama decide that Iraq has changed and has a chance for success should we leave our troop levels at what they are now for some period of time that you guys will be happy about that?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 01:00 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Obama has the nomination based on large part because he stated he would start removing troops from Iraq immediately. I am sure the quote is here somewhere.

If for no other reason, that alone has gotten him to the position he is in today. Now, should he change his mind on that, do you feel that he is the candidate you guys wanted to win? Should Obama decide that Iraq has changed and has a chance for success should we leave our troop levels at what they are now for some period of time that you guys will be happy about that?


I've never been happy with his Iraq stance; yet I remain one of his strongest supporters. For I am not electing myself to the presidency, but someone who I think will do a good job; and I don't expect Obama to agree with me on every issue.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 01:08 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Obama has the nomination based on large part because he stated he would start removing troops from Iraq immediately. I am sure the quote is here somewhere.


"Start," sure. I don't get what you think has changed or has been contradicted? He still says he will start to do that immediately; which is different from when it will end. He's trying for 16 months. (That's been a figure he's used over and over again, and that he continues to say is the goal.) But he will listen to commanders on the ground and refine that if necessary.

What's the whole flip-floppy/ bedrock issue thing here?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 01:36 pm
I won't make everyone read this -- it's long. Just plonking it so I can find it back easily in case there is cause for me to quote from it.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/07/much-ado-about.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 01:41 pm
"Press foolishness" pretty much covers it.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 03:39 pm
Flip flop and spin. Flip flop and spin. Its what politicians do and of course their adherents have to defend them because if they don't than they might have to admit they might not be as smart as they think they are.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 03:55 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Flip flop and spin. Flip flop and spin. Its what politicians do and of course their adherents have to defend them because if they don't than they might have to admit they might not be as smart as they think they are.


People have a hard time admitting they are wrong; we see that from both sides, although both Obama and McCain have flip-flopped on many issues.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 03:56 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Flip flop and spin. Flip flop and spin. Its what politicians do and of course their adherents have to defend them because if they don't than they might have to admit they might not be as smart as they think they are.


This is a rather silly point seeing as every candidate is both a politician and a human. The "adherents" of any candidate will tell you as much.

The questions of the campaign are:

- Will Obama be a good president?
- Will McCain be a good president?
- Who will be better for the country.

The idea that these two candidates are the same is ridiculous. (And I will remind the Bear that Nader voters said the same thing about Bush and Gore.)

There is a dramatic choice between these two candidates (one of whom will be president).

I feel strongly that Obama can be a very good president. I also feel strongly that a McCain presidency would be a disaster.

And that is why I am supporting Obama.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 04:11 pm
ebrown wrote: I also feel strongly that a McCain presidency would be a disaster.


Please explain why McCain's presidency would be a disaster?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 04:22 pm
- He will lead a hawkish foreign policy that will further exhaust our resources and keep us isolated from the rest of the world.

- He will appoint one or two (or even three) Supreme court judges. He has promised to appoint conservative judges similar to "Roberts and Alito". This will push the court even more in the Conservative direction to the point that Roe vs Wade could even be at stake.

- He will continue the trend of using the "War on Terror(tm)" to pit security against our human rights.

- He will continue to raise spending (particularly on security) while continuing the Bush tax cuts which primarily benefit the wealthy.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 07:07 pm
can't argue with that...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » more bullshit
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 03:28:44