Manufacturing a flip-flop

I think every journalist and journalist in training needs to read "Unspun", by the Annenberg people.. ABC is now aligning itself as an editorializing institution a la FOX and MSNBC and CNN...NBC and CBS can't be far behind.

I don't see anything wrong or untoward about Barak Obama aligning himself with welfare reform and such. He is after all a far left liberal and welfare is their number one bread and butter issue.

All those angry GOP'ers are going to be really mad when they find out just how far left the "moderate" Obama really is. But hey if a little revolt every 20 years or so is good enough for Thomas Jefferson its good enough for me.

JMZ,

Thanks for the post.

I notice a general 'what's wrong with Obama' mania in MSM. There must be armies of people hunting through archives, looking for evidence of flip-flops or other dirt. No surprise there. The GOP (and McCain with it) is the business friendly party.

This election will, apparently be decided on comparative lists of flip-flops. Issues/,schmissues.

However that got me to thinking and so I went a hunting for info on Obama.

On Tuesday, touring Presbyterian Church-based social services facility, the Democratic senator said he would get religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty efforts if elected.

"While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he declared.

Last week, he quoted Reagan, saying "we have to trust but verify" after Bush lifted trade sanctions against North Korea and moved to remove the country from the U.S. terrorism list.

He also disagreed with the Supreme Court decision last week that struck down a Louisiana law allowing capital punishment for people who rape children under 12.

Obama also supported new electronic surveillance rules for the government's eavesdropping program, saying "an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue," after opposing a similar bill last year.

After the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's gun ban, he said he favors both an individual's right to bear firearms as well as a government's right to regulate them.

Obama contended he is merely stating long-held positions — surprising to some, he said, after a primary campaign in which he was "tagged as being on the left."


I must confess that even I am becoming confused as to what Barak Obama is doing with his campaign. I am starting to get the impression that he is going to try and buck the far left. He is gambling that he can win november by moving more to the right and picking up what he might lose in far left votes with these shifts.

Neocon, judging from your first comment (where you stated that Obama's a far left liberal), it's not at all surprising that you are becoming confused.

There seems to have been rather a lot of wishful thinking going on by quite a few people. I always knew the far left would be unhappy when they figured it out (though lots of people tried to tell them). And for partisan Republicans who had banked on evoking fear of Obama's scary far left tendencies, this must feel like a rug pull.

Obviously, that "non-partisan" National Journal rating was allowed to pass unexamined by far too many for much too long.

Oh -- and runasim, you're welcome -- though I'm not JMZ.
:>

And for partisan Republicans who had banked on evoking fear of Obama's scary far left tendencies, this must feel like a rug pull.

Actually its smart politics. He knows that if he allows himself to be pinned by the far left then he is doomed to squander the opportunity he has and repeat the mistakes John Kerry made in 2004. Remember he is even more left then Barak Obama based upon voting records.

The coin flip is can he replace the far left votes with more mainstream voters and crossover Republicans which if he can pull it off gives him a consensus to govern. Meaning he will not be beholden to anyone group and can therefore govern to all groups which I think has always been his desire.

The problem with this is..............can he pull it off. If so it will be a coup for him and American Politics in general.

Neocon, I agree -- it's smart politics. But as I've written a bunch of places lately, I don't think he's doing much shifting...

When you say far left liberal, can you perhaps share which positions he has that qualify? I'll start: he's staunchly pro-choice.

What else?

Obviously, that "non-partisan" National Journal poll was allowed to pass unexamined by far too many for much too long.

However this I will debate. His record most certainly has been lockstep democratic and has leaned way left. There is no denying that.

I believe that the left is pinning their hopes on him and in fact he is starting to crack at the seems. The question is this by design or due to a total lack of campaigning skill. He out shizzed Hillary but that is because the two did not and I mean that literally...........they did not discuss issues, they simply discussed for 6 months who was better qualified to lead the nation. Now that that is settled is he really just not a very good campaigner or is this simply a strategy.

I believe the huge litmus test will come with the FISA vote. If he balks then we will know. If he signs on to it then he is reaching out to moderates with a fig leaf while rejecting the far left/antiwar crowd that swept him to power.

Bizarre move. Risky. Bold and it could be a winner or a big loser.

Far left Attributes.

Antiwar. The far left led the charge and the democrats in general picked up the mantle because they saw it as a winning ticket.

Tax the rich. The far left hates the rich and wants them to pay for their success.

Fisa rejection was a far left position. This truly is a flip flop.

Obama will also provide affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families.

Rejection of the bankruptcy laws and wants to redo them. Democrats favored this law. The far left opposed it.

Wants to restructure drug sentencing to make it much more lenient on Drug users. This was very popular with the far left under Janet Reno and has become a huge bone of contention under the much tougher GWB.

Tax credits for college essentially making Junior College FREE for the average American. College education has always been the mantle of the far left and its bastion is found in the halls of universities. What better way then to pay for more potential troops to show up and be indoctrinated by the Far left professors.

Thanks, Neocon, for responding. (one of the real joys of blogging, imo, is this interaction). I hope you don't mind if I share my views on some of these?

Re: Antiwar. Are you talking about pacifism in general? Or Iraq? Because if it's Iraq, you are mistaken about who supported what (or didn't). The objections to going into Iraq came from any number of places along the political continuum. Me, for instance. I was vehemently, adamantly, vocally against it, primarily because I'm familiar with the Middle East and Islam generally, and Iraq specifically. It was a stupid idea.

OTOH, if it was pacifism you were referring to, then I don't think you've read Obama correctly at all. Not even close.

Re: Taxes. It may very well be that the far left hates the rich (though I might have used "resents" instead of "hates). I think that there are socialistic goals out there in the left wing. But progressive taxation is not, in and of itself, a far left concept. It does fit with the Democrats, though. Are you saying that all Democrats are far left? (Because that's a whole different discussion..)

Specific to Obama -- he looks pretty much on the party line on this one.

FISA. I think there's some truth to the defense that the bill had changed. However, if he flip-flopped (and it's certainly a possibility), then he's moved away from an edge. OTOH, there's been some pretty hard-core rigidity on both sides of the FISA debate.

Re: Child care. You got me on this one. There's a specific policy proposal for child care?

It has always been my contention that IF you want to see what a candidate will be like in governance then look to the base. The base for Barak Obama has been the far left/antiwar mudslinging machine. It is the far left who is throwing hissy fits over Barak Obama's flip flopping.

I also believe that unlike most far lefteners that Barak Obama has the genuine ability to transcend his idealogy. As he himself once commented I am not an "Idealogue." It is this one unique thing about him that has attracted so many people to his ranks and is NOW totally confusing those far lefteners who staked a claim on his soul.

As for child care. Yes his website proposes that he wants to provide free child care for all low income families.

However in the long term when you add it up. When you put into place the costs of his programs going forward with the bones he throws to fiscal moderates the numbers are just not there.

It is the staggering costs of his proposals listed on his website in conjunction with raising taxes in the midst of a recession that has me believing that there is very little signs that Barak Obama is nothing more then a repackaged liberal who may even now be rethinking his own strategy.

As for the antiwar. You can be antiwar without being an idiot.

People burning flags, hanging out at soldiers funerals and screaming insults. Code PINK. Screaming hate filled rhetoric at Bush/Cheney......Calling them Heir, Hitler, Oberfuhrer, Chimperor in chief, Shrub, Mein Fuhrer.

Sending letters to congressmen threatening them with being voted out of office if they do not comply with getting out of Iraq. If they do not renounce their votes to go to war.

This is my version of the ANTI WAR. I was opposed to going to war in IRAQ but I have done none of the above.

It is these and others like them who have driven Barak Obama's campaign. No one that I know thinks Barak Obama would have stood a chance at being the nominee had he stood on the steps and said I support Bush/Cheney but.........So we all know his entire campaign got its drive. Jump Start and momentum from the Antiwar and slowly gainned momentum by attracting others who fit other molds along the way.

That to me is the antiwar and when I speak of the antiwar henceforth this is precisely who I am pointing too and who I am angry as hell over. Democrats stood shoulder to shoulder with Republicans and said lets go get Sadam Hussein and then bailed out and now the only Democrat to ever vote for going into Iraq is Hillary Clinton.

OH and perhaps my most convincing proof that Barak Obama is a far leftener.

EUROPE Adores HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!

"It has always been my contention that IF you want to see what a candidate will be like in governance then look to the base. The base for Barak Obama has been the far left/antiwar mudslinging machine. It is the far left who is throwing hissy fits over Barak Obama's flip flopping."

"The base" of both parties tends to be the passionate ideologues. Personally, I have problems with "the base" on both sides of the aisle. But while you're absolutely correct that the far left is having fits, they -- and you, perhaps? -- have both been reading far too deeply into some tea leaves or something.

Obama's not an ideologue, as you correctly state. So why, then, do you define him to me under ideological terms? Because the far left supports / ed him? You described him to me as "antiwar" -- but I have to tell you that I don't think he fits your definition at all. Some of his supporters? Yes. But what about the rest of us who support him, then? Are we all also guilty by association?

Yes I believe that all politician governs to the base. I do not believe I have been reading tea leaves. I believe that Barak Obama in order to set himself against Hillary needed to appeal to something that distinguished him from her.

With both candidates nearly identical to each other he used the war and Hillary's vote against her. That and the GOP's sincere desire to derail the Hillary express to the White House put Obama in the drivers seat. Now that he is in general election mode he has to begin defining himself. A simple Im not Hillary and I showed good judgement by being opposed to the war is no longer sufficient.

What Barak Obama is doing right now is trying to define for America who he is. Something that the primaries failed to do. Other then being a colorful and dynamic speaker the question still remained........"Who is this guy and what does he stand for?" That is what he is doing right now.

As he himself says I was painted left...........But I am not.......YET he did not try to discourage it and THAT makes him a politician.

Obama's not an ideologue, as you correctly state.

However I did not say he was not an idealogue. What I said was that Barak Obama has the genuine ability to transcend his idealogy. Meaning that from time to time he can rise above it or get past it to make decisions. You seem to want to put him in a light which permanently transcends himself and that would make him a moderate or a conservative.

I believe your argument is leading towards the latter. That as I have stated elsewhere Barak Obama is anything you want him to be. Just take a giant brush and paint your wants upon his canvas and they will come true.

You have painted him a moderate. I have painted him a far leftener and others are painting him as the saviour. While others are painting him now a traitor. His transcendence can only last so long and then he must alight somewhere.

Polimom,

Yes, indeed, Obama is working to define himself as he wants to be seen in the general election campaign, before McCain and the Republicans can do it for him. I agree with you, Obama is not an ideologue. I also agree that on many issues, e.g. increasing tax rates on higher income earners, blocking oil drilling offshore and in ANWR, etc., Obama is a very conventional Democrat. (This is not a good thing, IMHO. In many areas and these two in particular, the conventional Democrat position is sooo wrong. But I digress . . . )

During the primary season, Obama managed the difficult feat of leaving no ideological space at all between himself and Hillary, especially after the withdrawal of John Edwards, the darling of the true anti-war zealots. And he did so while leaving enough nuance (i.e. wiggle room) in his positions that he could move to the center (where his heart may well be) in the general election. The problem, is that one person's nuance is another's flip-flop, and is yet another one's betrayal. Having said that, I don't know that the change in positions is the problem as much as his seeming inability to acknowledge that, "yes, I have changed my position from what it was before, and here's why" followed by good, or at least arguable, reasons.

For example, one of the biggest reversals, i.e. his commitment to use public funding in the general election, as long as his opponent did, and then his "never mind", seems clearly driven by his assessment that he will benefit from breaking the promise. Not all that shocking, that a politician would break a promise and take the self serving course, but not exactly an example of a new kind of politics. On top of that, his stated reason, i.e. that the Republicans already have vast 527 organizations already spending money against him, is simply untrue. The Washington Post, among others, have called him on it, but he sticks by this (flimsy, untrue) reason for his decision. THAT's a credibility issue.

Obama may well be a somewhat left of center Democrat, whose heart may belong in the camp of the moderates. However, in winning the nomination, he clearly allowed the Democratic voters to perceive him as other than that, and the blowback he is experiencing was not hard to foresee. As long as he gets it all out and over with now, i.e. before most people tune in to the general election campaign, he should succeed in his repositioning. If he can't put all of this to bed by Labor Day, however, he will enter the general election campaign even weaker than he finished the primaries.

Yes, indeed, Obama is working to define himself as he wants to be seen in the general election campaign, before McCain and the Republicans can do it for him.

The truly amazing thing that has been happening this cycle is that McCain is doing the very thing he should not be doing. He is allowing the democrats to paint him. To define him. He is Bush Jr. A continuation of Bush.

McCain on the other hand has this bizarre notion that he must refrain and be a nice guy and seems to be waiting for the calvary to arrive to rescue him from those bad injuns.

McCain is running a campaign that is eerily similar to the one Kerry ran in 04. He seems to think hes winning and he only needs to mark time till coronation. Instead of hitting hard he is pitty patting around.

Amazing. The only thing that can defeat Obama is Obama.

Sending letters to congressmen threatening them with being voted out of office if they do not comply with getting out of Iraq. If they do not renounce their votes to go to war.

This is my version of the ANTI WAR. I was opposed to going to war in IRAQ but I have done none of the above.

You and the vast majority of Americans,

And that is why 6 years later, three trillions later, 4000 dead Americans later, 4 million Iraqi Refugee later and a least half a million dead Iraqis later, the WAR STILL GOES ON, but let's not be rude and impolite to the dumb-asses who rolled over for Shrub and voted for this illegal war and occupation.

Thanks Don. I appreciate you showing up and giving the perfect example of a far left/antiwar Barak Obama supporter and how insufferably intolerant they are.

The latest mantra coming from them is that now that Bush is nearing his term in office and we have not had him executed they have turned their wrath on the rest of America for not having had Bush executed.

Now that they have failed in Impeaching Bush and seeking their Reckoning they have turned to the average citizen and want to punish them. Want to blame US for the war now. Those of us who opposed the war but did not burn down buildings in our neighborhoods in opposition. The war is now our fault. We failed as citizens by not marching in the streets.

It is a shame that this nation has so let down the far left/antiwar. But they got their champion in Barak Obama. However if he continues this slide toward the center the above rhetoric that destroyed Hillary Clinton and razed Bill Clinton will be turned towards Barak Obama.

Now that they have failed in Impeaching Bush and seeking their Reckoning they have turned to the average citizen and want to punish them. Want to blame US for the war now.

Who the fuck do you think should be blamed for the war? The fine citizens of Canada? the fine citizens of Mexico? The fine citizens of France? They aren't the ones who elected Shrub, the Right Wing war mongering Republican Congress or the Cowardly, spineless democrats. Ultimately US Citizens are responsible for the actions of the US Government, if you don't like it move to some nice Dictatorship in which you have no voice and therefor no responsibility for the actions of said government.

Those of us who opposed the war but did not burn down buildings in our neighborhoods in opposition.

I didn't ask you to burn buildings down or expect you to, just some nice letters, a few nasty phone calls to your congresscritter explaining the facts of life to him, such as you vote for this war, I will support your opponent at the next election cycle.

The war is now our fault. We failed as citizens by not marching in the streets.

You're damn right that IT IS OUR FAULT AND THAT WE FAILED AS CITIZENS.

Thank you Don. Your words are doing way more then I could ever do with a book written explaining the absolute hatred the antiwar has exhibited towards all.

Anyway. Thank you. When I speak of the antiwar I will just point to this topic if anyone wants to know who Im referring to.

n November 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush, visiting Europe for a NATO summit, declared that "should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him."[79]

Thereafter, the Bush administration briefly used the term Coalition of the Willing to refer to the countries who supported, militarily or verbally, the military action in Iraq and subsequent military presence in post-invasion Iraq since 2003. The original list prepared in March 2003 included 49 member nations.[80] Of those 49, only six besides the U.S. contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Australia, Poland, and Denmark), 33 provided some number of troops to support the occupation after the invasion was complete. Six members have no military.

Mabey we should blame them too.

Thank you Neo. Your words are doing way more then I could ever do with a book written explaining the absolute cowardice & irresponsibility the so called moderates have exhibited towards all. Too chickenshit to enlist and go fight and too chickenshit to stand up to the war-mongering right-wing, chickenhawks the lot of them, willing to fight wars with other people's blood but not their own.

Mabey we should blame them too.

And I do!

Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law?


Readers who need to "trust but verify" (i.e., to corroborate) for themselves that the experts' overwhelming opinion is exactly as stated above should read a document entitled "15 January 2003." (Find it by scrolling down approximately one-fourth of the way, after you've clicked onto this ES website: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm "The Legality Of The Iraq War" .) Why?

That document was drafted and signed by the world's foremost international law experts -- the prestigious International Commission of International Law Jurists -- to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they'd drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.

Skeptical readers who don't regard this highly-authoritative conclusion as an adequate answer are invited to undertake the legal reasoning for themselves at the ES website. Note that every applicable Article in the UN Charter, and every relevant UN Security Council Resolution, is cited and analyzed therein. And readers who continue to scroll down the ES website will find a succession of articles which summarize the opinions of noteworthy individual experts on international law. These, too, strongly confirm that the invasion of Iraq constituted an illegal war of aggression under international law. [5]

Well Im glad that I can provide for you a fine example of a cowardly, chickenhawk. I do try hard to fulfil my civic duty as best as this old wheel chair will allow me.