Obama is turning into John Kerry

slightofjeff

catch22 wrote:

imagine that... a leader of a democracy listening to the will of the people!

Really? You think it's a good thing to have a president that changes his mind every day?

I understand there is a danger to going too extreme the opposite way, but sometimes you have to have your principles and stand by them.

The way democracy is supposed to work is the candidates say, "This is what I believe" and you vote for the one who already most reflects your views.

Not pick a candidate who says, "Hey, I believe whatever you want me to believe."

That's a terrible way to govern.

inmytree

slightofjeff wrote:

That's not preferable, either. I'd like a leader who can sense changes on the ground and adjust to them.

But what has happened in the past few months that has caused Obama to flip-flop on all these issues?

The economy was already in the shitter when he promised to raise taxes.

Oil prices were already sky-high -- maybe even higher than they were now -- when he said he was against new drilling.

The war in Iraq was still an "illegal occupation" when he promised to end it immediately.

It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that he's saying whatever will stick against the wall and will get him elected. At some point, you have to have principles.

Obama, as far as I can tell so far, has none. His principles are whatever the latest poll numbers tell him they should be.

I hear you, and don't disagree that he's modified his stances...I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but this is politics...and oddly enough, I'm pretty sure he wants to get elected...does that mean he's going to tell me what I want to hear from time to time...yup...

all I'm saying is McCain is doing the same thing...he wanted leiberman...nope...he was against the tax cuts now he's for them...he's a maverick for fighting the far right wing, then hugs and kisses hagee...

You speak of principles...well, take a look at McCain of 2000 and McCain of 2008...honestly, I would have voted for McCain 2000, but McCain 2008 scares the shit out of me...he's pandering and changing as the wind blows as much as Obama, if not more....

slightofjeff

RainDog wrote:

What can I say - It's hard being a blind follower hypnotized by pretty words.

Hey, you made a fan! Good going!

inmytree

slightofjeff wrote:

Don't know if you've been following ... but the McCain = Bush argument really isn't sticking.

Better to find a new one.

do the polls tell you this...?

catch22

slightofjeff wrote:

Really? You think it's a good thing to have a president that changes his mind every day?

I understand there is a danger to going too extreme the opposite way, but sometimes you have to have your principles and stand by them.

The way democracy is supposed to work is the candidates say, "This is what I believe" and you vote for the one who already most reflects your views.

Not pick a candidate who says, "Hey, I believe whatever you want me to believe."

That's a terrible way to govern.

worked ok for bill clinton

slightofjeff

inmytree wrote:

I hear you, and don't disagree that he's modified his stances...I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but this is politics...and oddly enough, I'm pretty sure he wants to get elected...does that mean he's going to tell me what I want to hear from time to time...yup...

And I agree a little bit of wiggle room is a neccesary evil in politics. But if you look at this in perspective of the last presidential election the Democrats lost, all this vascillating is really devastating to Obama's pitch.

As I mentioned earlier, Kerry lost in large part because Bush was able to paint him as an indecisive flip-flopper. Remember all those numbskulls at the RNC pounding those sandals together and chanting "Flip-Flop, flip-flop!!"

Obama is making it way too easy for McCain to do the same this time around.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, maybe Obama is genuine in his flip-flopping. Maybe he's carefully considered all these issues from a variety of angles and come to the understanding that his initial policies were wrong. Good for him. But it does him no political favors, and it hurts his campaign.

inmytree

slightofjeff wrote:

Really? You think it's a good thing to have a president that changes his mind every day?

I understand there is a danger to going too extreme the opposite way, but sometimes you have to have your principles and stand by them.

The way democracy is supposed to work is the candidates say, "This is what I believe" and you vote for the one who already most reflects your views.

Not pick a candidate who says, "Hey, I believe whatever you want me to believe."

That's a terrible way to govern.

I wouldn't mind a president who changes his or her mind when faced with new facts, or data that supports a need to change stances, or thinks things through which leads to modifying there position....

It's better that some smuck who sticks with a failed policy, facts be damned...

catch22

slightofjeff wrote:

Obama really isn't a good candidate, period. He made his mark with a couple of nice speeches, but I don't think he's been able to close the deal with anyone.

If you are a leftist, he's the guy you want to vote for, though. Unless you're willing to go third-party.

You can vote for him as a centrist, too. But he's not going to "work for compromise," because he doesn't have to. So if that's your sole reason for pulling the lever for him, you'll probably be disappointed.

Contrary to popular belief, and probably contrary to some of the verbiage I've used on this thread, I'm really not trying to tell anyone who to vote for. I think most people already have their minds made up, whether they know it or not. And if they changed their minds based solely on what some anonymous yahoo on a Pearl Jam message board said, I would feel sorry for them indeed.

i was semi-sitting things out. then mccain picked palin. and i knew where he stood and that he was also willing to say and do whatever it took to get elected. they're both the same on that count. might as well take the one who doesn't give me nightmares of world war 3.

slightofjeff

catch22 wrote:

worked ok for bill clinton

We'll just have to agree to disagree one that one.

slightofjeff

catch22 wrote:

i was semi-sitting things out. then mccain picked palin. and i knew where he stood and that he was also willing to say and do whatever it took to get elected. they're both the same on that count. might as well take the one who doesn't give me nightmares of world war 3.

That's fair enough.

I'm far less concerned with McCain's alleged "hair trigger" when it comes to war than I am with Obama's perceived naievete when it comes to dealing with big national issues.

(He was all over the map, for example, in his official reaction to the Russia-Georgia dustup. He had no clue. And he was *supposed* to be the Senate chairman on European affairs)

But this is where you and I differ and it's a fair difference, I suppose.

digster

slightofjeff wrote:

He's offering change on his economic policy ... he was for ending the tax cuts for the rich, now he's for keeping them around awhile.

He's offering change on his more drilling policy ... he's was totally against it, now he's sort of for it.

He's offering change on his Iraq policy ... he was for an immediate withdrawal back in March, now maybe not.

He's the candidate of change alright.

I'm pretty sure this has been little pretty much straight from a McCain speech. I really wish the partisans here, both liberal and conservative, would get away from just spouting talking points like they're getting a memo from the campaigns in the morning. I swear, by now I could probably recite verbatim what a McCain or Obama surrogate will say when being interviewed.

EDIT: I must say, I also don't understand the argument that with McCain (like with Bush), you "know what you're gonna get." So basically, I should vote for him because although he's an unbelievably shitty president, he certainly believes in what he's doing? Great, so when that guy in Kansas can't afford health care I'm sure he'll feel much better knowing the guy in charge had good intentions.

inmytree

slightofjeff wrote:

And I agree a little bit of wiggle room is a neccesary evil in politics. But if you look at this in perspective of the last presidential election the Democrats lost, all this vascillating is really devastating to Obama's pitch.

As I mentioned earlier, Kerry lost in large part because Bush was able to paint him as an indecisive flip-flopper. Remember all those numbskulls at the RNC pounding those sandals together and chanting "Flip-Flop, flip-flop!!"

Obama is making it way too easy for McCain to do the same this time around.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, maybe Obama is genuine in his flip-flopping. Maybe he's carefully considered all these issues from a variety of angles and come to the understanding that his initial policies were wrong. Good for him. But it does him no political favors, and it hurts his campaign.

I think we agree here...

also,.I think Kerry was a fucking horrible candidate...I think he's a horrible speaker, and I never had the chance to vote in the primaries since the Kerry was the nominee early on....Kerry didn't lose because he was a flip flopper...he lost because he was a terrible candidate...

slightofjeff

inmytree wrote:

do the polls tell you this...?

Actually, yeah they do, now that you mention it.

catch22

slightofjeff wrote:

And I agree a little bit of wiggle room is a neccesary evil in politics. But if you look at this in perspective of the last presidential election the Democrats lost, all this vascillating is really devastating to Obama's pitch.

As I mentioned earlier, Kerry lost in large part because Bush was able to paint him as an indecisive flip-flopper. Remember all those numbskulls at the RNC pounding those sandals together and chanting "Flip-Flop, flip-flop!!"

Obama is making it way too easy for McCain to do the same this time around.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, maybe Obama is genuine in his flip-flopping. Maybe he's carefully considered all these issues from a variety of angles and come to the understanding that his initial policies were wrong. Good for him. But it does him no political favors, and it hurts his campaign.

eh, have you seen the reaction to palin's personal assault? having any ideals left of religio-fascism is bad for one's campaign the right will get whipped into a frenzy. the left is too disorganized. obama could pick a centrist platform today and stick to it until november. the right would tear him apart because he's left of mccain and the left would tear him apart for not being ralph nader. that's why democrats always look like flip floppers... their party demands that they are accountable for their bullshit. the right doesn't. they either rally around the leader or say 'fuck it' and stay home. the left either rallies or rips you apart on the one issue they don't like you on (even if the other 50 are perfect in their eyes). so he HAS to try to be all things to all people. it's a burden the right just doesn't have. obama's doing a decent job of not letting it trap him. without ross perot, this country would not have had a democratic president since carter. it's impossible in this climate.

inmytree

slightofjeff wrote:

Actually, yeah they do, now that you mention it.

awwww....swayed by the polls....

where are your principles...???!?!?!

slightofjeff

inmytree wrote:

I think we agree here...

also,.I think Kerry was a fucking horrible candidate...I think he's a horrible speaker, and I never had the chance to vote in the primaries since the Kerry was the nominee early on....Kerry didn't lose because he was a flip flopper...he lost because he was a terrible candidate...

He was a terrible candidate for some of the reasons you mentioned ... and also because he was so easily painted as a flip-flopper ... "I voted for it before i voted against it" is STILL a part of the political lexicon.

In many ways, that election was "The Decider" vs. "The Flip-Flopper."

I'm actually at a loss as to why the Democrats can't seem to come up with a candidate to take advantage of the Republicans' vast unpopularity. I really thought they could run Shakes the Clown and win handily this time around.

So far, I think too many people see Obama as a great speaker who never has accomplished anything ... and he's having trouble closing the sale because of it.

RainDog

slightofjeff wrote:

Hey, you made a fan! Good going!

Hey, what can I say. When I'm right, I'm right.

inmytree

slightofjeff wrote:

He was a terrible candidate for some of the reasons you mentioned ... and also because he was so easily painted as a flip-flopper ... "I voted for it before i voted against it" is STILL a part of the political lexicon.

In many ways, that election was "The Decider" vs. "The Flip-Flopper."

I'm actually at a loss as to why the Democrats can't seem to come up with a candidate to take advantage of the Republicans' vast unpopularity. I really thought they could run Shakes the Clown and win handily this time around.

So far, I think too many people see Obama as a great speaker who never has accomplished anything ... and he's having trouble closing the sale because of it.

it's marketing....

Sadly, there is a large portion of our population that has little or no clue...they hear something juicy and suddenly it's truth...

I heard a repub. on the today show a couple of years ago, in discussing Irak, he said "the facts just aren't true"....the Matty just let that statement roll on by....

slightofjeff

digster wrote:

I'm pretty sure this has been little pretty much straight from a McCain speech. I really wish the partisans here, both liberal and conservative, would get away from just spouting talking points like they're getting a memo from the campaigns in the morning. I swear, by now I could probably recite verbatim what a McCain or Obama surrogate will say when being interviewed.

EDIT: I must say, I also don't understand the argument that with McCain (like with Bush), you "know what you're gonna get." So basically, I should vote for him because although he's an unbelievably shitty president, he certainly believes in what he's doing? Great, so when that guy in Kansas can't afford health care I'm sure he'll feel much better knowing the guy in charge had good intentions.

I would vote for McCain because I agree with more of his principles than Obama's.

I would not vote for Obama because, as of late, he's made it exceedingly difficult to determine what his principles are exactly.

YieldInHiding

slightofjeff wrote:

I would vote for McCain because I agree with more of his principles than Obama's.

I would not vote for Obama because, as of late, he's made it exceedingly difficult to determine what his principles are exactly.

Which McCain principles do you agree with?