Obama's Flip-Flops Costing Him in the Polls
Dick Morris has some cogent points regarding Obama's recent flip-flops.
http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=936
Obama has carried flip-flopping to new heights. In the space of a month and a half, this candidate - who we don’t really yet know very well - reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least eight key issues:
* After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.
* Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.
* Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.
* Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it.
* From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.
* For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.
* Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.
* During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers - but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.
* After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.
Obama’s breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain’s. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama’s shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar.
As a candidate who was nominated to be a different kind of politician, Obama has set the bar pretty high. And, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short, to the disillusionment of his more naïve supporters.
As someone who lives in a very liberal area, I can confirm from personal experience that the left wing of the Democratic Party is utterly dismayed by Obama's inability to stick with his positions. The radical Democrats do not get "nuance" or really understand political strategy (as opposed to tactics) very well. While they would never vote Republican, many of them are talking about voting Green, and of course many may be sufficiently turned off by Obama's indecisiveness to simply stay home on Election Day.
Part of Obama's problem, I think, is that he is not used to the level of visibility of a national election. Previously, he has only had to deal with statewide elections, and a very friendly press -- he could flip and flop to his heart's content unnoticed.
Like Bill Clinton before him, he is discovering that a national election is a whole new ball game, when it comes to the scrutiny of his promises.
http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=936
Obama has carried flip-flopping to new heights. In the space of a month and a half, this candidate - who we don’t really yet know very well - reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least eight key issues:
* After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.
* Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.
* Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.
* Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it.
* From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.
* For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.
* Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.
* During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers - but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.
* After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.
Obama’s breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain’s. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama’s shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar.
As a candidate who was nominated to be a different kind of politician, Obama has set the bar pretty high. And, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short, to the disillusionment of his more naïve supporters.
As someone who lives in a very liberal area, I can confirm from personal experience that the left wing of the Democratic Party is utterly dismayed by Obama's inability to stick with his positions. The radical Democrats do not get "nuance" or really understand political strategy (as opposed to tactics) very well. While they would never vote Republican, many of them are talking about voting Green, and of course many may be sufficiently turned off by Obama's indecisiveness to simply stay home on Election Day.
Part of Obama's problem, I think, is that he is not used to the level of visibility of a national election. Previously, he has only had to deal with statewide elections, and a very friendly press -- he could flip and flop to his heart's content unnoticed.
Like Bill Clinton before him, he is discovering that a national election is a whole new ball game, when it comes to the scrutiny of his promises.